Page 2342 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 5 June 2013
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (6.11), in reply: I thank members for their contributions. It is disappointing that the government will not be supporting the motion. As we go through the cost of living statement that has changed its form we will look to see whether it has been enhanced or not as we unpick it; and that is certainly something that we will examine during estimates. If indeed it has been enhanced then we will welcome that. If it includes all those things we talked about like parking and all the other components then we will welcome that. If it does not then I think we will have seen more mistruths and bending of the truth by the government. But that is probably a debate for another day.
This is a serious motion. The cost of living is something that has been a recurring theme. Certainly, it was a key point with the Canberra Liberals in the last term—and it will remain a key point of difference, I think, between our two parties in terms of priorities. Priorities are what it comes down to ultimately. It is where the focus of the government is. It is disappointing if Mr Rattenbury is going to leave during the debate because I think that—
Mr Rattenbury: Mr Hanson, for your benefit I will stay.
MR HANSON: I am disappointed Mr Corbell is not in here as well. The point that I was making about priorities and competition between the two hardcore lefties in this place, the environmental extremists, seems to be a factor that is contributing to the cost of living in this town. I do not think Tom Waterhouse is taking odds yet on who is going to cost Canberrans the most with their progressive ideals. I am trying to assess where the odds might sit. When we look at who we can tag each of these policies to, I am sorry to say, Mr Rattenbury, that I am going to have to award the 40 per cent carbon emission targets policy to Mr Corbell as minister for the environment.
Although you have been a strong advocate for that and dogmatic in your pursuit of it, you will be disappointed to see that it is that and the 90 per cent renewables policy that are costing Canberrans so much. The needles and syringes you will probably take over as a bit of a campaign. I am not sure how much that will cost or how much has been spent on the numerous studies that we have had on that ideological pursuit. I am happy to pass that one on to you. Then there is public housing. I think the bill that we saw from the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement was $1 billion. It was costed by Treasury as $1 billion. I happily give that to Mr Rattenbury.
Wood heaters? I am not sure; it seems to split between the two with the jurisdictions. I will award that to both of them in terms of the cost of living pain that is being inflicted on Canberrans. Light rail? Again, although Mr Rattenbury is an advocate for light rail and, indeed, wants light rail pretty much everywhere in Canberra—the Greens’ plan in the lead-up to the election was for light rail all across Canberra at God knows what price to ratepayers; it would be many billions of dollars, I am sure—as it falls under the jurisdiction of Mr Corbell, I think that one probably goes to him.
I was actually struggling with who wanted ownership of the Skywhale. It would seem that Mr Rattenbury has claimed that, so he can take that—if only because it is a smaller amount than perhaps the billions that have been spent elsewhere. But the