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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2206 ..

that is what we are doing-

What we are doing is entirely consistent with precedents. As Mr Kaine rightly said, it breaks no conventions and no laws. If one can add to that a final endorsement, the Speaker decided that it could not be ruled out of order. In a very short space of time we have demolished all of the claims that have been made by Mr Humphries with his re-creation of history.

I apply those same comments to the contribution that Mr Moore made to this debate. It is quite clear that Mr Moore wanted to talk about anything except the issue of principle which applies in relation to this matter-whether or not expenditure on free school buses is a good education expenditure or not. The same rules apply in relation to Mr Moore. No conventions have been broken; no laws have been broken. The financial initiative of the Crown is preserved. We are conforming with convention. I have demonstrated that any bleatings to the contrary are quite phoney.

Mr Stefaniak talked about capital expenditure. I think Mr Smyth referred to it also in his comments in relation to the buses. If Mr Stefaniak takes a look at the bill, he will note that it is our intention to make sure that none of the money which has been allocated for the free school bus system in the budget, including the expenditure on new buses, will be allowed to be spent. It will be unlawful to spend the money for the new free school bus system if the bill passes. That is the intention of the bill. Mr Stefaniak is just trying to confuse the issue by saying that it is not open to this Assembly to change the budget in relation to the expenditure which is intended for free buses. Of course it is, and it will apply and the full $27 million will be put into education to ensure that the 75 per cent who miss out under the government's scheme do not miss out in future. That is the aim of the amendment to the Financial Management Act which has been put before the place today.

Mr Humphries: How is this amendment different to the one in 1993? What is the difference between this one and the one in 1993?

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says, "What is the difference between this and what happened in 1993?" I do not recall the amendment in 1993 having anything to say about the Financial Management Act. Mr Humphries might recall that too. I think that is pretty clear.

I come to the Osborne and Rugendyke position. I heard Mr Osborne say that he thought that this was some sort of tax relief for parents. He characterised it as tax relief, to try to avoid debating the worth of the free school bus initiative. If this is tax relief, then so too was the support that was being offered to drug-dependent people by way of drug injecting rooms, and Mr Osborne moved to take that tax relief away from them. They could not afford to buy themselves a place to have a supervised injecting room, so the

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