Page 2665 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for the Auditor-General. That has been their clear and unequivocal message. I even heard Mr Coe say in his comments that he wants the government to reconsider the amount of funding that is to be provided to the Auditor-General. I think it is time that we know exactly where the Liberal Party stand on the matter of funding for the Auditor-General. Are they going to vote in favour of funding for the Auditor-General?
For the last hour we have heard their continued assertions about how important it is to properly resource the Auditor-General. It would appear that they are not keen on the idea of actually having to test the issue and say whether or not they are going to vote for the Auditor-General’s appropriation. We heard Mr Seselja say on the radio this morning that they will not be voting for this budget or any part of it. Mr Speaker, the two things cannot be reconciled. Either they support additional funding for the Auditor-General or they do not.
For the last hour, we have heard a tirade from those opposite who have said, “You must properly resource the Auditor-General.” When it comes to the question of whether or not they are going to vote on it, are they going to have the courage of their convictions and say, “Yes, we will support funding for the Auditor-General,” or are they going to scurry away and say, “No, no; we think there should be more funding for the Auditor-General but we’re not going to support the budget; we’re not actually going to vote for funding for the Auditor-General”?
They should be consistent. It should be on the record. Do they vote in accordance with their convictions? Do they vote to back up the claims they have made in the debate for the last hour in this place? Or are they simply going to try and scurry away and avoid the question of a vote on the record? Let them put it on the record. Let them put their views on the record. I am simply asking that the Assembly allow this vote to be recorded with each and every member indicating whether or not they support an appropriation for the Auditor-General.
At the moment we have a contradictory position from the Liberal Party. On the one hand, they are saying: “We won’t support this budget. We think it’s a rotten budget; we’re not going to support it.” Then they say, “But it’s vitally important that you fund the Auditor-General.” Which one is it, Mr Seselja? Which one is it, Mr Hanson? Which one is it, Mr Coe? Which one is it, Mr Smyth? Do you support funding for the Auditor-General or do you not?
That is the question, Mr Speaker. They should have the courage of their convictions to put on the record whether they support funding for the Auditor-General or whether they are opposed to this budget. The two things cannot stand. They need to be consistent in their approach.
That is why I am moving for the suspension of standing orders to allow a call of the Assembly so that each member can indicate their view on the record.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.12): Again, Mr Speaker, the leader of the house shows his appalling lack of understanding of the standing orders. The position of the Liberal opposition is clearly stated here today in the debate; no vote will in any way modify or enhance that. The position of the Liberal opposition is clearly indicated in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .