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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2429 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, that will be a matter of working out what arrangements should be put in place. I expect that we would not return to precisely the same scheme we had prior to 30 June this year, but rather would reflect what is actually being done in New South Wales with respect to subsidies.

MR QUINLAN (4.18): The opposition will support this amendment. Originally, we found ourselves supporting the government in removing the subsidy from low-alcohol products; not happily so, but only under the threat that, in fact, we would become a clearing house for alcohol sales in New South Wales because we were providing a subsidy and there was not a subsidy in New south Wales, so we would be up for, possibly and probably, much more than $1 million.

Now that New South Wales has reversed its position, the reverse applies in the ACT. If we did not provide the subsidy, it is highly likely that no wholesalers would be selling low-alcohol products in the ACT because all of the ACT outlets would, if they had any brains, start buying their products via New South Wales.

I am very pleased that New south Wales has reinstituted this subsidy. It is of regret that it has taken until the eleventh hour for it to have done that. I am also pleased to support the reintroduction of the subsidy for low-alcohol products in the ACT.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed expenditure, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, as recommitted, taken as a whole.

MR CORBELL (4.21): I want to speak briefly on the budget as a whole. Much has been said about it, but I do feel that it is important to rise on the issue of the so-called blocking of the budget. That term has been used a lot in this debate and it has been used a lot over the past couple of weeks. I must say that I find it to be grievously wrong. It is wrong to compare the constitutional crisis of 1975 with the impasse that occurred here because they are distinctly different. They are distinctly different if not for the point that this Assembly did not block supply. Anyone who has an understanding of the 1975 crisis will appreciate that.

In 1975 the Senate refused to pass the budget. At no stage did the Senate vote to reject the budget. Mr Speaker, it is perhaps a fine point and I am happy to engage in debate about the appropriateness of the actions that occurred in this place on the Friday before last, but the reality is that this place did not block the budget; it rejected the budget. The Senate refused to pass the budget. The constitutional crisis in 1975 was precipitated by the Senate's refusal to provide any supply and to vote against the budget.

In 1975 the conservative parties refused even to debate the budget. They blocked the passage of supply. The Whitlam government argued that that vote should be held and the budget either rejected or passed. That is what occurred in this place: we had the debate and the budget was rejected in this case. What occurred in the Senate in 1975 was a blocking of supply. It was a refusal to vote on the budget.

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