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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2203 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Rugendyke has been consistent between the two years. He declined last year to amend the budget but agreed to vote against the budget as a whole. This year he has also declined to vote against the budget, but I gather he will be supporting the budget as a whole. The Labor Party, I understand, is also supporting the budget as a whole but is seeking to amend it this year. There is no consistency whatsoever in their position from year to year.

I want to put on record today, for the sake of utmost clarity for those who come after us in this place, that what this amendment to the Financial Management Act amounts to-and it is to be supplemented by amendments tomorrow to the appropriation bill-is an amendment to the budget. By moving in this way to amend the budget, the Labor Party has established-or, if you like, revived-a precedent which we all thought had been nailed into its coffin in 1995.

Incidentally, the major parties combined on that occasion to vote 13 to 4 in favour of the motion which I moved at that time to preserve the financial initiative of the Crown, which is that only the Crown can move to amend its budget.

I say to the Labor Party that if they pass this bill today that principle will have been revived, that precedent will have been revived, and it will not so comfortably and easily be forced back into its coffin after today.

I concede that we made a mistake in 1993. It was argued in 1995 that that was the case, and the Assembly collectively agreed that that was so and that we would not repeat that incident. The Labor Party's view has changed. They seek to make fine distinctions between what happened then and what happens now, but if members study the minutes of 1995, when a series of amendments similar to those being moved today were put to the Assembly, they will see that the Labor Party on every occasion voted against them, expressing support for the financial initiative of the Crown. There is no distinction between that case and the case today.

What I am saying is that the Liberal Party is not going to live by a standard which other people in this place are not prepared to live by. If we support the position that only the government can amend the budget, but every other member in this place supports the view that it can be amended, we are not going to be Robinson Crusoe any longer.

When the Labor Party finds itself in government at some point in the future-they tell us it will be in October of this year-and they face amendments to their budgets from some point after October, I do not want to hear them come back and say, "But you have defended the financial initiative of the crown." There is no point defending a principle that is already in tatters and has died a painful death in this place.

I will deal with a few brief issues in the time remaining. I will not seek an extension of time. The Labor Party says that they are champions of education; that they are going to fight for the education system. I would ask only that members consider what the Labor Party did in government. I hold up these headlines from the Canberra Times in 1993: "Teachers to fight Follett cuts", "Up to 550 public sector jobs to go in new plan". I quote:

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