Page 1873 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are concerns clearly around some of the detail of what the Greens have proposed. I do at least give the Greens credit for putting forward a constructive alternative that can be considered. It was not just opposition for opposition’s sake, so I can indicate to the Greens that, should this bill be unsuccessful today, we will investigate these possibilities. I advise the Assembly that we can expect to be revisiting this matter as a regular occurrence. The Greens have indicated that 12 months would be the appropriate time line. I am happy to work within that time frame if this legislation is not successful today. It is disappointing that it would appear that the Greens will not support this legislation. We will see; we will move forward on that.
What is not surprising, though, is the position of the ACT Liberals. Without any defensible rationale, they oppose the bill. What is this about? It is opposition for opposition’s sake—nothing more. It shows that on this budget day the first signal that the Liberal opposition are sending is that they are not interested in saving taxpayers’ money on even the most minor of administrative changes. Since the election, they have been permanently locked in a position of opposition for opposition’s sake. I really look forward to some time later today the po-faced shadow treasurer getting up in this place, or outside, and trying to explain to the people of Canberra why it is that he will not support the most simple administrative change in this piece of legislation to save the taxpayers over $200,000 over the next four years.
If this challenge is too big for the shadow treasurer, the want-to-be Leader of the Opposition—if this change and this challenge are too difficult—the question that every member of the media needs to ask is: how is this Assembly going to go about the difficult task of making the sorts of administrative changes that will be necessary in the long term to restore the territory’s finances to balance if the Assembly is going to baulk at this minor administrative change?
We know it must be a source of continual embarrassment for the Liberal Party that their shadow treasury spokesperson has never, ever, met an industry that he does not feel can be bought off by a certain amount of Liberal Party largesse. That is really what this is all about: it is a shadow treasurer who talks the big talk and asks all the questions about microeconomic reform, but, when it comes to the most micro of microeconomic reform, stumbles at the hurdle—cannot even bring himself to vote for a sensible minor administrative measure that will save taxpayers $200,000 over the next four years.
This is symbolic of the sort of position the opposition will take, because how could anyone anticipate support for any sort of serious microeconomic reform if something as minor as this administrative change is being blocked by the Liberal opposition? Something as minor as this is being blocked by the Liberal opposition. They have no stomach for microeconomic reform. They have no stomach for efficiency. They have no stomach for the future of what is an important venue for the territory. Their appalling position here will be shown for what it is: opposition for opposition’s sake.
Question put:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .