Page 1617 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


you that the opposition is firmly committed to no pay parking at ACT hospitals? I stress that one more time.

In conclusion, the opposition will have a lot more to say about this catch-up budget, this budget that fails to restore the damage done by at least two or three years of neglect, if not more. Let us put on the record that the Stanhope government has again let down the people of Canberra with the 2007-08 budget. The budget has not restored the damage done to essential services in the last few years, let alone built the additional, badly needed capacity. The over-bloated bureaucracy has still to be cut in order to transfer meaningful resources to the front line. This budget does not do that. The horror story continues.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.43): It is interesting that yet again, like last year, not a single member of the government rises to defend Mr Stanhope’s budget. Let us face it: this is Mr Stanhope’s budget. He is the Treasurer; he is the Chief Minister. He is the one that should be setting the direction, setting the parameters for the next year—indeed, as that year is the basis for the outyears, setting the direction for the future of the ACT.

That is what is missing from this budget—direction. There is no future in this budget. What we see is change for change’s sake. What we see is catch-up, as so eloquently outlined by Mr Pratt, on essential things like roads and footpaths, fixing potholes and trimming trees—things that have been consistently neglected by this government for the last six years in the pursuit of personal follies.

The follies are well known and have been outlined by members, but it is worth putting them on the record again. They include things like the bus lane from Belconnen. I would offer Mr Hargreaves the opportunity to jump up here and tell us whether it is on or whether it is off: it has been in, it has been out; it has been on, it has been off; it has been going, it has been stopping. The public do not know. That is symptomatic of the way the Stanhope government makes decisions. Mr Corbell has got the flick; it is not his anymore. It is over to the minister for transport. Perhaps that minister will jump up and tell us. Is it really on? Is it really off? What is your expected lifespan, John.

What the 2007 ACT budget characterises is the complete lack of vision and enthusiasm. The Stanhope government came to office in 2001 and said, “We’ve got a plan. Our plan is to put together a series of plans. Yep, that’s what we’re going to do. We are going to take the first term in office to make plans.” And they did. We had the Canberra plan, the spatial plan, the social plan and the economic white paper. Here we are at the end of another three years, and where have they gone? They have all gone. Ted Quinlan’s memory is erased. The economic white paper is gone. The social plan is gone. The spatial plan is sort of there except for the bits we do not like because Simon Corbell was really interested in them. And then, of course, there is the Canberra plan, which is totally destroyed by the budget of the last two years.

Simply put, this is a disappointing budget that highlights the waste of the last six years. But more than that, it is a contradictory budget in many of its decisions. Let us ask ourselves a question: what does this budget do? In one way, it reinforces many of the decisions that were made in the 2006 budget. It reinforces the fact that this is the


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .