Page 1425 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
from efficiency dividend measures in their 2010-11 budget and to include a poverty impact analysis as part of the triple-bottom-line framework that is currently being developed by government.
Mr Smyth again talked eloquently around the crisis that many of our community services are having out there. They are turning away one in 10 people. We know the ACOSS survey this year has told us that there is a huge amount of unmet need. As I said, I went back to this motion in October last year where we wanted to ensure that those same community organisations who are delivering services to those vulnerable people would not be hit even harder.
Guess what: at that time, the Liberal Party, through Mrs Dunne, put forward an amendment to my motion to take those two things out. They felt it was economically irresponsible for the ACT government to quarantine those same community organisations that provide these services to these vulnerable Canberrans that Mr Smyth is talking about in his motion today. I found it quite astounding, a little audacious, that it might be put into this motion today, considering that only a few months ago the Liberal Party refused to support that part of my motion that very much goes to the heart of what Mr Smyth appears to be talking about today.
The Greens have agreed to support the provision of core services. Again, that is mentioned in Mr Smyth’s motion. In the agreement with the ALP—it is called the parliamentary agreement—we have agreed to support “the passage of appropriation bills for ordinary annual services of the government”; in other words, the core services this motion of Mr Smyth’s expresses concern for. I note that last year the Liberals did not actually support the provision of these services when we got down to a vote on the budget.
So I would like to take the opportunity to clarify that with Mr Smyth, yet again, in regard to the budget for this year, because obviously his motion is all to do with budget expenditure. But we have not agreed to pass the budget; rather, our support is guaranteed for the core services that Mr Smyth is seeking to protect in this motion. For Mr Smyth to continue saying that we have agreed to pass a budget as presented without questioning the expenditure is simply wrong and, in fact, is actively deceiving the people of Canberra.
If we go to a couple of other things—I know they have been raised by other members in this place—there was the question of Gungahlin Drive. That is probably a straightforward one for the Greens. We did not believe that was the right road to build in the first place because we thought it was unfortunate that the government at the time had, and of course now continues to maintain, a focus on cars rather than looking at alternative forms of sustainable transport.
We have consistently argued for improved public transport, including, in the future, light rail. We think that would have been a better alternative to the GDE. My fear is that yes, these extra lanes will be built and they will be clogged up. They will be clogged up from day one. And that is the problem with continuing to build roads. It does not mean that people get from A to B faster; it allows more congestion on our roads. And there is plenty of evidence out there to show that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video