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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2521 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The Labor Party then went to the election in 1995 reiterating its undertaking not to cut education and going further by promising an extra $6m for education, not just to replace voluntary fees but also to make up the amount that is not collected in some schools where the collection rate is low. We also undertook to provide $1m for information technology, unlike Mr Stefaniak, who has a policy but no money to implement it. That was Labor's response to the situation that occurred in 1993, to the views that appeared to be out in the community about the education budget. We turned around our policy of seeking to apply efficiency cuts in education but to maintain the education budget in real terms and we promised new ways of improving the education system. That is Labor's record. The Liberals, speaking from the opposition benches, were saying, "We think that cutting the education budget is a bad thing."; but, the first time they get onto the treasury benches, on go the cuts. That is the reality of the situation.

Let us look at the attitudes of other people to this. Are the education unions, the parents and citizens and people like Michael Moore attacking the Government for having done an about-face on the position that they took in 1993? No. The villains of the piece are the Labor Party, who did hear the voice of the Assembly in 1993, who maintained that position in 1994, and who went to the electorate in 1995 with a policy not only of maintaining education funding but of increasing education funding. Yet everybody wants to say that it is our fault that the Liberal Party have gone back on their position in 1993, have gone back on their election promise and have cut education. It is not a sustainable position.

Mr Moore said earlier that he expected an invitation from the Labor Party to vote with the Labor Party. I have to extend it to you, Mr Moore. You should vote with the Labor Party on this because the Liberal Party's policies are not only wrong but also hypocritical. They go against the position they took in 1993 and they go against the position they took to the electorate in 1995. We should be going down the track that the Labor Party has advocated of voting out this appropriation and sending the Government away to come up with a new one. I understand that Mr Moore says, "Well, that will mean the fall of the Government. Mrs Carnell threatened to resign, so I cannot go against that threat". I still would advocate, Mr Moore, that that is the best thing.

I want to say one other thing in relation to this, because Ms Tucker repeated again the suggestion that we in the Labor Party had wrongly ganged up with the Liberal Party to rule out these amendments. Mr Speaker, whatever views people might have on the system of government we have in the ACT, it is the system we have to operate under. There are appropriate procedures that can be put into place if people want to go about the business of trying to change the system of government in the ACT, but we have a system now which does not allow non-Executive members to amend the budget. That is the fact. A linchpin of Mr Moore's argument in his comments on the motion earlier was that it does not matter because in his opinion it is not justiciable; that we can do the wrong thing because nobody can stop us. That is a linchpin of his argument; that it is a non-justiciable matter, which means, "Who cares whether it is right or wrong? We will just change the rules and no-one will be able to stop us".

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