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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2189 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

bargy about principle. The government is standing on its dignity and saying that the opposition does not have the right to change its budget and the opposition is saying that it does. Mr Rugendyke does not know what the hell he is talking about. He is just totally confused about the principle involved.

As I see it, the government is quite entitled to say that the opposition cannot change its budget. The government can say it, but it carries no validity because, as I understand what Mr Berry is trying to do, it is not improper in any way, it does not contravene any statutory limitation imposed on this Assembly, it does not contravene any standing order that affects the way we deal with budgets in this place, and it does not contravene any convention that is in place about the way we deal with budgets.

I challenge Mr Rugendyke to get to his feet after I finish speaking and explain to me under what principle he is taking the stance that he is taking. Last year, by his own admission, he was quite happy to tinker with the budget. Why was he quite happy to tinker with the budget last year? I will tell you why, although it is as obvious as the nose on your face: the last budget had something in it that he did not like and he was able to tinker with the budget because he is one of two members of this place who could have brought the budget down if the government had not buckled. That is why he tinkered with the budget last year. That is the principle on which he stood last year.

This year the only difference is that somebody else wants, to use his term, to tinker with the budget but, because he is in the position that he is in where the budget stands or falls on the way he votes, this year the principle is different. You are not supposed to tinker with the budget unless you are the government. He said that the government is entitled to its budget. He did not think that it was entitled to its budget last year.

Mr Rugendyke, on his own logic, should be supporting Mr Berry in this motion today because, as I said, it does not contravene any statutory limitation on us, it does not contravene any standing order of this place and it does not contravene any convention that is incumbent upon us in the way we deal with budgets in this place. The bottom line is that, for Mr Rugendyke, principle is a movable feast. I would submit that the only principle that Mr Rugendyke works to is that might is right. If you have the power to bring the government down, you can threaten them until they buckle. When that does not apply in your own self-interest, you do not do it, and I use the term "self-interest" advisedly. I want Mr Rugendyke to get to his feet and tell me under what provision of legislation, standing orders or convention he can say that what he did last year was okay and what Mr Berry is asking him to do this year is not. It is no good just saying that it is different, because in my view there is no difference, but I would like Mr Rugendyke to explain in what way he now justifies his position.

MR QUINLAN: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR QUINLAN: I will be very brief. I jumped up at the same time as Mr Kaine to respond to Mr Rugendyke. He keeps saying that two members of the government crossed the floor to support the Labor Party. That is not true. I think that he should have the integrity to stand up and withdraw that.

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