Page 787 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013

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

We will, under the parliamentary agreement with the Greens, deliver on our election commitments. I imagine we will see derisory motions like this with Mr Hanson taking up the time of the Assembly. We will continue to govern in the long-term interests of this city. We will not avoid the challenges that face not just Canberra, not just Australia, but the world. We will not pretend that climate change is something we do not have a responsibility for. I am here to make a difference; I am here to make a difference so that my kids grow up in a city that is as good to them as it was to me when I was growing up.

These are the challenges. Yes, it may impact on some people’s energy bills, but what about the legislation we have introduced to reduce energy bills by $300? I did not notice that in your speech, Mr Hanson. What is the price of doing nothing? Seriously, what is the price of sitting there and doing what you do, Mr Hanson?

Mr Hanson: Well, several billion dollars by the sounds of it.

MS GALLAGHER: Just let it all go, let it all happen, do not respond to significant global challenges, pretend that you can do nothing and everyone will be better off for it. The evidence does not support that view. This motion is derisory. It is an embarrassment for you, Mr Hanson, that in your first week as Leader of the Opposition this is the best you can come up with—trying to create some scare campaign. Well, good luck to you. I am sure we will hear the words “green”, “progressive”, and “extreme” many times over the next four years, and we look forward to beating you in 2016 based on the success of your negative, carping campaigns of the past.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.28): I, too, am very concerned about the plans and the cost of this Labor-Greens majority government. It is a government formed on a big-spending, high intervention, grandiose and indulgent ideology; an ideology rejected at the last election. I do not like the idea of having a coalition government formed on the basis of being the most green and progressive as determined by Mr Rattenbury or, as the Labor Chief Minister said, “Being a green, progressive government is a badge that we would wear with some pride.” There is no doubt whatsoever that the Chief Minister would not have said such words in the campaign, so why did she say them afterwards?

During the campaign the Labor Party adopted much of the Liberal messaging of the past four or five years about local services, commitment to service delivery and concentrating on the things that matter to Canberrans. During the election, neither Labor nor the Liberals spoke about how progressive we were or how green we were. This is because the Liberals do not believe it and the Labor Party know it is bad politics. Yet when push comes to shove and Ms Gallagher is desperate to retain power, she says and will give away anything—including one of her own ministers—to hang onto power.

It must be said that there would be many in the Labor Party who are very disappointed with how the Chief Minister negotiated with the Greens. Many in the Labor Party, I am told, say that Katy Gallagher gave away too much and that she did not need to sell

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