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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2553 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

In Mr Moore's entire speech we never actually got to find out what it was that Ms Follett had done that constituted double standards. It was never said. We know why it was never said. It was never said because, as Mr Connolly pointed out several times, what he was really criticising was the fact that this Assembly had upheld a constitutional position which is upheld in all parliaments in Australia and is part of our tradition going back hundreds of years in the United Kingdom. Only governments introduce money Bills; only governments propose appropriations. Mr Moore might not like that. He is trying to censure us for upholding the Westminster tradition of parliamentary government. What an extraordinary thing!

Mr Speaker, there are other things about this motion. Observers of the ACT Legislative Assembly will be familiar with the "no hard feelings" gesture from Mr Moore. Having done over the Chief Minister with a censure motion about her disgraceful budget - and I have to agree with him about the budget - it is important to Mr Moore to move the "no hard feelings" motion saying, "But you should not feel too bad, because I am going to get together with you and give the Opposition a kick as well, just to show that I am still good enough to invite upstairs for a scotch after work". That is fair enough, but let us be - - -

Mr Humphries: It is sake these days.

MR WHITECROSS: That is right. Let us get back to the basics. As I said in the debate on the Appropriation Bill, we are the ones who listened to what the Assembly said in 1993. We are the ones who have adopted education policies along the lines that you were advocating in 1993, Mr Moore. The Liberals are the ones who sided with you in 1993 and have since changed their minds. Mr Moore, our position in 1993 was that a budget should not be amended. I wonder, Mr Moore, whether in 1993, had you been faced with the situation you are faced with today, you would have done what you have done today. Would you really have believed in 1993 that you would get the education budget you wanted if you tipped us out and put them in? I bet you did not think so. We all know that it was a convenient thing for them to vote from the opposition benches for the amendment that was moved in 1993, but they would not have done that to the education budget if they had been in government.

There is no question of our having a double standard. We had a position in 1993 which we went into the parliament with honestly. We argued for it honestly, but we lost the argument. Since that time we have adopted an education policy consistent with the outcome of that debate in 1993. The Liberals are the ones with the double standards. The Liberals are the ones who did not want to cut teachers in 1993 but do want to cut teachers now. We do not have anything to be ashamed of. We have been consistent all through this debate.

Mr Moore correctly says that it is interesting that in 1993 we had one amendment and in 1995 we have something like 10 amendments. How many amendments would we have had next year if we had allowed this to continue? Mr Moore is right when he says that he did not have the benefit of Mr Connolly's legal advice or any of the other legal advice when he moved his amendment; but, like everybody else, he did have the green book.

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