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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2414 ..

MR STEFANIAK: It does not matter if you have an upper house as well as a lower house. If you have one house, I think the principle remains the same. Other things flow from 1975. The Governor-General who made that decision-and many regard it as wrong and many regard it as right-was effectively hounded out of office about two years later. There was a lot of talk of instability and a lot of nervousness among public servants thinking they were not going to get paid. People in the bush were even considering whether they would have to take up arms against instability in the country. It was a scary time in Australian politics.

Since then Liberal Party, National Party and ALP oppositions in the federal parliament have not blocked the budget of the government. I could be corrected. I am uncertain whether a state opposition has blocked a budget. It is a sensible convention for the stability of government, and I would suggest more so for minority governments in a place like this, where we have had only one majority government, the Alliance government, a loosely cobbled together coalition. Even more so in a place like this you need stability.

The population wants stability. That is borne out by an opinion poll in the Canberra Sunday Times. They asked, "Do you think the Chief Minister should have resigned over this?" I think 84 per cent said no and only 16 per cent said yes. I may be wrong. It might be that 86 per cent said no and 14 per cent said yes. It was very significant majority that said no. People want stability. Sadly, in the course of the Carnell government, the Labor opposition has voted consistently against the government's budget. That is a very bad precedent to set. We are now seeing the results of that precedent. It has come back to bite them.

It is all very well to say that this government should have done something different or that the independents were wrong and that one of them should have supported the budget. Yes, maybe Ms Tucker should have. She supported Mr Moore's supervised injection place. Did she not support the budget. Mr Kaine made his position very clear in debate, and quite properly so. Mr Hird has indicated that he was opposed to the safe injecting place. So am I. But the government is entitled to its budget. If the budget had been passed, we would not be having this debate.

I am amazed-although nothing really surprises me-that the Labor Party persists in voting against the government's budgets. To a man-there are no women there-they voted in favour of the injecting place after the debate in December. It is not Liberal Party policy. Liberal Party policy is: "Do not put it in place until you have had a referendum." The people might now have a chance to have a referendum on this. It was Labor Party policy and caucus policy that every member had to vote for the injecting place. A few of them were very concerned about that and did not want to do it. But that was the position the Labor Party took. If they wanted it, they should have supported this budget. Logic dictates that. They have only themselves to blame.

It is all very well for Mr Corbell to ask how else they can oppose the government and say that opposing a government's budget is merely a way of voicing opposition to a government. Rubbish! The Liberal Party, in opposition in the Second Assembly, indeed in opposition in the First Assembly, always voted for the government's budget.

Mr Berry: No, you never voted.

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