Page 119 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, resume your seat. Stop the clock, please. Mr Corbell and Mr Coe, let us not have a yelling match across the chamber. I cannot possibly hear what Mr Hanson is saying. Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our clear position is that this should go to the election, but it seems that this government is going to ride roughshod over the community, which I think is disgraceful. If it does so, we put it on notice that it needs to make sure that in writing any contract it does so in the best interests of the community. Should the community at the election say, “No, we don’t want light rail to proceed,” and they vote Liberal to express that sentiment, then what we do not want is a government which is trying to write contracts which are punitive and in the interests of the consortium, not the ratepayer.
At the moment it seems that the government think that the winners out of this are themselves and the international consortium. Who do they quote to back up their case? Jamie Briggs. That is the person they think they should be taking their economic advice from. I think it is fair to say that if you are taking your economic advice from Jamie Briggs, as Simon Corbell and Shane Rattenbury are, it probably explains why the ACT is in the trouble it is in with debt and deficit. I would say to Mr Rattenbury: take a look at who your friends are. You are very selective. I would caution you. I would say that, rather than quoting Mr Briggs, you should look to what Ms Bresnan said on the eve of the last election and look to what Damien Haas said on the eve of the last election but, more importantly, look to what the people are saying.
If you do not believe us, look to the union polling. What is that telling you? It is a clear indication that the community is very concerned about this project. There are those who support it but, equally, there are many more who oppose it. The right way to proceed—if, as Mr Rattenbury is saying, this is just the first of many phases—is to take the community with you. Go to the community and say, “This is our plan. This is what we think is the right way to go. Come with us on this journey.” Why would they not do so if they are so convinced that this is the right way to go? The problem, as they know and we know, is that the community does not want this.
The clear choice that has emerged out of all of this debate is to say to the people of the ACT in 2016, “Do you want hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of your money spent on a tram? Do you want your rates to go through the roof to pay for it? Or instead would you rather a Canberra Liberal government which will invest in health, education, local services and infrastructure across all of Canberra and in public transport across all of Canberra?” That is the clear choice that is arising out of this. If and when we take government I will leave you with the very clear message that we will not proceed with light rail. There should be no doubt.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.06), in reply: To conclude the debate, the opposition is unfortunately not surprised by the decision of those opposite to not support this very reasonable motion. Going to the crude politics of this, I am just amazed that they are so confident in their position yet they do not actually want to have an election based on it. It is interesting, isn’t it? Because if they are so confident that light rail is a winner, why do they not hold off until October and say, “The only way you are going
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video