Page 3927 - Week 10 - Thursday, 28 August 2008

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

$4 million; abolish the water abstraction charge at $22 million; abolish development application fees at $1.3 million; abolish land tax or change the land tax rates at $2.2million; provide free essential staff parking at a cost of $2.5 million; reduce parking fees at $1.6 million; abolish the city centre marketing levy at $1.5 million and reduce stamp duty—un-means tested and designed to actually put up the price of houses—at $33 million a year.

The revenue cuts that the Liberal Party have promised are real promises on the record. They are there for everybody to see. The Liberal Party have promised to reduce revenue by $90 million a year. These are promises that they have made which they have not resiled from, which they have not walked away from, of revenue cuts of $90 million a year.

Which of these promises do they intend not to keep—the $150 million worth of policy announcements they have made over the last three years or the $90 million in revenue reductions that they have promised? The total recurrent impact of promises and revenue cuts that the Liberal Party has promised, over the term, starting this financial year are: $97 million growing to $218 million to $244 million to $259 million.

It does not seem credible, does it, that the Liberal Party have already, seven weeks out from an election, promised to reduce revenue by $35 million, followed by $86 million, $89 million and $92 million over the cycle, with a total recurrent impact of spending commitment and revenue cuts of $97 million, $280 million, $244 million and $259 million. These figures are verifiable, documented and costed by Treasury.

Over and above that, of course, they have made capital promises which they have not resiled from, led, of course, by the $250 million Tennent Dam. They have promised to devote the entire capital budget for the next year or so to construct the Tennent Dam—a promise they have not walked away from.

There you have it. There you have the risks for the budget and for the territory. I think that, come election day, the people of Canberra will not risk it. The Liberal Party is a party that is prepared to say and do anything, to make promises that they know they cannot keep for the sake of appearing credible. That is what they are doing. They have spent four years fighting each other and now they are making promises that they know cannot be kept. (Time expired.)

Parking regulations

MR STEFANIAK: I will close my career as I started in 1989, when my first question was a constituent one. For this one, the lucky minister is the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services. Mr Hargreaves, I have written to you about this matter and some other aspects of it. A constituent of mine who you will recall, Mr Colin Mitchell, who lives in Macgregor, like many other truck owners, parks his prime mover vehicle at home. As you are aware, Mr Mitchell had a falling out some years ago with an old friend who has taken to doing anything he can, it seems, to make his life difficult. That includes complaining about the truck.

I understand that there are regulations that relate to parking large vehicles on or near residential land in the territory. However, in relation to Mr Mitchell’s case, there has

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