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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1803 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

volumes for both Mr Sinderberry and Mr Cooper. The choir will be there, Mr Hird. I will be there, absolutely freezing and probably getting wet, by the sound of it. I certainly hope all members can get out to see the game. It should be a beauty. Let us hope the Brumbies win.

MR SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mr Corbell withdrawing the matter of public importance he submitted for discussion earlier this day.

Debate resumed from 23 May 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:

MR SPEAKER: I remind members that, pursuant to the authorisation for broadcasting given on 23 May 2000, the proceedings during the consideration of the Appropriation Bill 2000-2001 will be broadcast.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.00): Mr Speaker, from time to time, incidents in political history take on a life of their own and enter the national psyche. They become part of the culture. A 10-second grab on the TV news enters the national lexicon. Everyone know where they were and what they were doing when Gough Whitlam spoke of Kerr's cur.

So it is that we recall Bill Hayden's assertion in 1983 that even a drover's dog could win the election. Perhaps Bob Hawke had a different view; but the point I make is that the 2000-01 ACT budget is a drover's dog budget. Even a drover's dog could have written it. Then again, some dogs are smarter than others; there are those who could have written it better. This is a budget written on the back of an envelope: a pay envelope that contained a bonus, a surplus not even the government knew it was falling into.

Mr Speaker, each budget delivered in this place has its own character, either by design or default. Last year's budget was, in the words of the then Treasurer, always awake to a tabloid headline, the full-monty budget, although this government's record on matters of disclosure, transparency and accountability falls well short of contemporary expectations and its own guidelines, so closely does it follow the Jeff Kennett model.

This year's budget is characterised by the political nature of the Treasurer's address, with repetitive attacks on the Labor Party. That is fine with me, of course; I am a politician. Perhaps, however, it is a sorry reflection on the nature of our profession that I barely noticed. Mr Humphries' address contained, I am told, no less than 14 references to the Labor Party-albeit, of course, contrasting somewhat unfavourably our record with theirs-and not one reference to the Liberal Party, not even the Canberra Liberals or the Carnell Liberals.

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