Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2207 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
government, if we use Mr Osborne's analogy, was providing them with some tax relief to provide them with a safe place to inject heroin. It is a silly analogy and Mr Osborne cannot rely on it.
When he saw that argument starting to fall to pieces, he came back into this place and said, "You can support the budget or vote against it. You cannot alter parts of it." I have just referred to practice and precedents which demonstrate that it is quite open and proper, and indeed required of an opposition, to make these sorts of moves when the government makes mistakes as this one has. This is a monumental mistake. It is unjust and it is a misdirection of funds. This deserves to be undone.
Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke agree with Labor that this is silly expenditure and it would be better directed in another way, but neither of them want to do anything about it. Mr Rugendyke, in an article in the Chronicle, described the $27 million free school bus plan as blatant electioneering strategy that appeared to be a higher priority than a range of other pressing proposals. He went on to say:
If the Government is serious about addressing the real deficiencies in the education system it could use the $27 million currently allocated for free school buses to finance the school counsellor/student welfare worker proposal put forward by the ACT Council of P&C Associations, purchase specialised buses for special schools and special learning units across Canberra, or decrease class sizes across school years.
That was on Tuesday, 29 May, but when Mr Rugendyke found out that Labor was intending to alter the budget, the very next day there was an article in the Canberra Times which made it clear that Mr Rugendyke had changed his mind:
Mr Rugendyke said that while he saw the free bus scheme as blatant electioneering by the Government, they had worked hard to create a surplus and had the right to spend it as they saw fit.
On 29 May it was not a good idea; on 30 May it was a good idea. He said that they could spend it how they liked. Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne were prepared to take away from drug-dependent people a safe haven for injecting drugs and claimed they were doing the right thing to tear down the budget to do that. We accept that they did not like that. Now they agree with Labor, but they deny that they have the right to delay this spending until after the next election. Let us make it an election issue for all of us here.
Of course the government do not want to do that, because they know that they have picked a loser and that they are not trusted on this issue. They made a promise in 1995 which they promptly forgot, and it was no longer a promise after it was forgotten. It was not mentioned in the 1998 election, and now they have seized upon it as some sort of salvation for themselves in light of poor polling.
This amendment to the Financial Management Act which has been put by Labor is intended to delay the expenditure of this money until the election or until a motion is passed in this place authorising the expenditure. It is as simple as that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .