Page 2233 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What will happen is what always happens when Labor gets in, if they ever manage to get over the line. It will be the same old story. They will say, “We have got six state and two territory governments and a commonwealth government. We can absolutely run amok.” The unions will demand all sorts of things that they think are achievable. The economic rationalists will say that this is going to wreck the country. We will have runaway inflation. We will have all sorts of crazy ideas. And eventually the public will say, “Well, we’ve tried that experiment. Now we’ll remember.”
Somebody said to me last night that the problem is that every generation has to experience a Labor government to know how bad they are. I hope that theory is not played out at the end of this year, but that is the biggest danger for the party that is in power federally. Mr Stanhope has been around long enough. He is a bit older than me. He knows exactly the point I make—that, if they get in, they will absolutely up-end this city. They will dish the money out. They will move the jobs to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—particularly Brisbane; that will be the new capital of Australia if Kevin Rudd gets in there.
Of course, the people who are going to lose out are going to be the ACT community. It will be the ACT public servants. It will be the Canberra property market. The poor old territory government that is awash with cash is going to find things start to ease off. I can understand the point, and I thank Senator Humphries for ensuring that he contextualised the remarks of the Chief Minister.
I also said to Senator Humphries, “What is all this about your support for the per cent for arts thing?” I said, “Is this your policy?” He said, “Well, not quite.” He said:
We did have an informal policy in … 1989 -1991 … for 0.25% of the building budget of major projects to be put aside for public art, in both govt and non-govt projects.”
Again, the situation has been embellished and inaccurately reported. But be assured that even that level of obligation is not something that I think is appropriate for the taxpayer—
Mr Stanhope: So you are saying it was not his policy? Is he saying it was not his policy?
MR MULCAHY: I am saying what the policy was.
Mr Stanhope: It was a percent for art policy.
MR MULCAHY: It was 0.25 per cent, as an informal policy two years ago, on major projects. So let us just make sure that we do not embellish the story.
Mr Stanhope: Yes. It was not a one per cent for art policy; it was a per cent for art policy.
MR MULCAHY: So that has clarified that issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .