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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2434 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It is always open to an opposition to test whether the government has the confidence of the Assembly. In that vein, Labor is entitled to question this government's budget. We do not support this government or its policies. This is a government, after all, that turned the demolition of a hospital into a tragic circus. This is a government that spent millions on the redevelopment of a football stadium without the approval of the parliament. This is a government that gave a secret tender to a single developer to introduce rural residential subdivision to the territory.

This is a government responsible for bizarre legislative proposals, evidenced by the Attorney introducing abortion regulations over the objections of the health minister, who has to administer them; the health minister introducing legislation affecting the injecting room trial over the objections of the Attorney, who has a vital role in making it work; and the health minister introducing bills to ensure greater government openness in contracting while the government resists the disclosure of documents in the AAT.

We do not support this government: why would we support its budget? After all, it is a budget whose projections changed significantly in the five months from its release in draft form with the arrival of more than $80 million in unexpected revenue. This is a budget characterised by an $8 million slush fund, to be spent at the health minister's discretion; no decisive action on elective surgery waiting lists, despite having access to more than $8 million in Commonwealth funding; no plan to deal with critical nursing staff shortages; a shameful neglect of indigenous health issues; another slush fund for the Attorney's use; cutbacks in funding for community legal centres; no measures to address Canberra's hidden poverty, despite the much vaunted social capital; and proposals to sell off school ovals. Why would we support this budget? We have too many misgivings about a budget that missed a golden opportunity; a drover's dog budget.

I do admit that Labor, too, misjudged the extent to which Mr Osborne would go to stop the injecting room trial. While I understand the strength of his opposition to the initiative, I had thought Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke had more respect for the democratic process. That is not the case, apparently.

When Mr Osborne plunged the Assembly into disarray, Labor looked for a plan of action, a solution to the impasse, a way to resist the extortion attempt. We looked in vain, of course; we should have guessed what was happening. As is its wont, this government chose to work behind closed doors. It chose the line of least resistance, bowing to Mr Osborne's bottom line. It chose to appease Mr Osborne rather than circumvent him.

Over the weekend after the vote, it concocted a can-do solution with Mr Osborne and his advisers. Labor proposed a solution. Whatever the Chief Minister says, I offered her a solution on the Monday morning that would have ensured she got her budget and remained in government and Canberra got the injecting room trial that she and Ministers Moore and Smyth said they were committed to.

Perhaps more importantly, it was a solution that would have demonstrated that the Assembly is not prepared to have its democratic processes hijacked by Independents who have no regard for such processes. But at the time I offered this solution, the deal had already been done with Mr Osborne. Worse, even though it had been signed and sealed, the government persisted publicly with the spin that the continuing uncertainty meant that the territory was being plunged into constitutional chaos.

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