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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 2171 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

As one of those who believe that the budget is okay, I have no trouble with suggesting that the Government consider the matter. That is fair enough. What they do after that is up to them. But - this is the point that I referred to before - that recommendation has been misrepresented to the community as the unanimous view of the committee that the education budget should be supplemented. No matter how you describe it, that is a dishonest representation of the opinion of the Estimates Committee. I need to make that point quite firmly. I did not join in any recommendation that said that the Government must reinstate $3.8m to the education budget. I and others on the Estimates Committee did not participate in such a recommendation. In fact, no member of the Estimates Committee participated in that kind of recommendation. For members of the Opposition to say publicly that there was a unanimous decision of the Estimates Committee that the Government should put $3.8m back into the education budget is a gross misrepresentation and it is dishonest.

Mr Wood: Semantics.

MR KAINE: It is not semantics, Mr Wood. The members of the Estimates Committee - I do not mean the drop-ins who were allowed to come in and ask questions but the members of the Estimates Committee who sat in a deliberative meeting of the Estimates Committee and framed that recommendation, and that includes Ms McRae - all knew what the intent of the committee was. It was not what has been misrepresented to the public. You can talk about semantics all you want. It is you who are entering into a semantic argument. I know what the recommendation meant, Mr Moore knows what it meant, and I submit to you that Ms McRae knew what it meant too. For her to go out and present it in some other fashion is, I repeat, dishonest.

Mr Speaker, we have had a few whinges along the way from the Opposition chair of the committee. It is interesting that the one thing that seems to have stuck in her craw is the Assembly's budget. The Assembly's budget, I believe, is adequate for the Assembly to do its job. I have the same staff I had under five years of Labor government. I have available to me the same resources of all kinds that I had under five years of Labor government. What has changed? The only thing that has changed is that because of the stupid decision of the Administration and Procedure Committee you cannot get in the door after 5 o'clock. It was not the Chief Minister or the Government that directed that; it was a decision made by the Administration and Procedure Committee. If you want to get in the front door after 5 o'clock, members of the Administration and Procedure Committee should change their decision about how one might be able to achieve that objective.

I do not agree that it is anything that the Government has done that has caused this problem. It is a wilful, deliberate decision by the Administration and Procedure Committee that has caused the problem. In fact, it does not cause me any problem. I can get in and out of the building at any time I like because I have a card that allows me in. So what are you whingeing about? Can you not run your card past the sensor at the door and get in?

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