OPPOSITION Leader Jeremy Hanson used his Budget reply speech this afternoon to attack the ACT Government’s honesty and accuse it of sinking the Territory too far into debt, at the same time as cutting jobs and services.

In attempting to paint a black-and-white picture of a high-spending, dishonest government, wasting money at the same time as making harsh cuts, next to a virtuous Opposition, Mr Hanson turned the words of former Labor Chief Minister Jon Stanhope against the party Mr Stanhope once led.

Borrowing from a 2001 campaign speech made by Mr Stanhope, the Opposition Leader said his role, to scrutinise the Government, was “particularly necessary as governments become lazy, arrogant, aloof and accident prone”.

“… and there is no better demonstration of those attributes than the Budget paper that was delivered by this government two days ago,” he continued.

On the one hand, Mr Hanson said Tuesday’s Budget was “marked by soaring debt [and] massive deficits” and that it demonstrated “breathtaking disregard for fiscal responsibility”, while on the other hand he attacked the Government for “a list of delayed or deleted projects, of unmet expectations and undelivered promises”.

“The borrowings of this government, including its Territory Owned Corporations, are already $2.7 billion dollars, or nearly 70 per cent of the total Budget,” he said, adding that the “accumulated interest bill in this Budget totals over $650 million”.

Mr Hanson pointed to “massive delays” in court cases, poor emergency department waiting times, lower-than-expected ACTEW dividends, and a “blow out” in the cost of the ACT’s jail, as examples of the Government’s failures.

The Opposition Leader also suggested that if in government, his party would halve the fees for sporting teams to use suburban ovals, establish a “proper preventative health taskforce”, build an Autism School, appoint a fifth Supreme Court Judge and reduce the Lease Variation Charge, and would not have cut funding to the SmartStart for Kids anti-obesity program.

He gave several examples of what he called the Government’s “track record of dishonesty”, starting from Chief Minister Katy Gallagher breaking a promise she made as Education Minister in 2004 not to close schools.

Mr Hanson also said that despite Katy Gallagher and Andrew Barr claiming that there would be no job losses, 100 staff were being cut from the Education Directorate, 17 from CIT and 38 from the Community Services Directorate.

“But the people who were most deceived are those Canberrans who this Chief Minister stared straight in the eye and said that their rates would not triple under the tax reforms proposed by her Treasurer,” Mr Hanson said. “Madame Speaker, the mathematics of the tax reforms are undeniable and inescapable.”

“…The rates take before the reforms was $173.7 million. Labor are removing $347.4 million in taxes and charges and putting it all into rates. That’s triple. There is no way out of it. The only matter in question is how long it will take.”

But perhaps Mr Hanson’s strongest critique was reserved for the Labor Party itself, which he said was “engaged in some race to the left with the Greens” and received funding from immoral sources.

“…How do you trust a government that is so morally corrupt that it derives millions of dollars from the proceeds of poker machines to fund its election campaigns, money that comes out of the pockets of Canberra families, in some cases from problem gamblers, to fund slick ads for Katy Gallagher to tell those same Canberra families how much she cares?” he asked rhetorically.

In conclusion, the Opposition Leader compared the Budget to the controversial Skywhale, ending his speech where he began – with a quote from former Chief Minister Stanhope.

“I just think it’s selfish, I think it’s self-indulgent; it sort of smacks of arrogance,” Mr Hanson said, repeating some of Mr Stanhope’s negative remarks about the odd-looking balloon.

”I think it was a misstep; I think it was politically naïve; I fear that this particular incident, this particular expenditure, this particular piece of public art will come to symbolise the year, and it’s divisive.”