Page 132 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Unfortunately, your colleague sparked a discussion on electoral results but, Mr Stanhope, let us return to the matter of substance.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am happy to do that. As we look into Mr Seselja’s motion there are a number of other indications of the type of man that he is and the kind of government that he would lead. He criticises the government for spending more than the rest of the country on public housing, but you heard him just now condemning and damning us for daring to spend more than any other government on public housing. Then he criticises the government for spending less than other governments on private schools. What a wonderful summary of the man and the sort of government he would lead.
To condemn this government for investing in public housing and then in the very same breath to condemn it for spending less than other governments on private schools—what does it reveal about Mr Seselja and the Liberals? Where does this casual and contemptuous demonisation of public housing tenants come from? It comes from the same place as the ridiculous Liberal plan—renounced by, I have to say, the previous Liberal housing spokesperson—the random, unannounced drug raids on public housing tenants.
That is where it comes from. But it is a very unpleasant subtext to today’s motion. A government that spends more on housing, its more needy—what an outrage! A government that is investing millions retrofitting its public housing stock with water and energy saving technologies—double outrage! A government that believes its own tenants deserve to live in a place they can be proud to call home—for goodness sake, quickly call in the auditor! But, of course, when it comes to funding private schools, more generosity is called for: why are we being so miserly? In the case of private schools we are to be condemned for not giving enough, except, of course—gosh what a surprise!—he has misunderstood the numbers. The ACT government provides $1,600 in funding for non-government schools. It is below the national average but it is not the lowest. Anyway, Mr Seselja got the numbers wrong; he miscounted.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (10.42): While the Greens share some of Mr Seselja’s concern on aspects of the Productivity Commission’s report on government 2010, we cannot support the motion in its current form. The Greens cannot support the motion on several levels. The motion opens by asking the Assembly to note that the Productivity Commission delivered through its report on government services “a scathing appraisal of the performance of the ACT Labor Government”. In fact, the Productivity Commission did not and would not deliver an appraisal of any state or territory. The report merely delivers statistical data.
The second point of the motion asks the Assembly to note “lack of efficiencies within the ACT Labor Government”. This is an extremely broad and sweeping statement which asks the Assembly to take on some sort of good faith the opposition’s statement without any reference to specific data or parameters.
The motion then continues to ask the Assembly to note some very selective sections of the report. While the statistics quoted may be accurately lifted from the report, they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video