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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2551 ..

MS FOLLETT: Mr Moore knows as well as I do, Mr Speaker, that the Labor - - -

Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard Mr Hird move: That the question be put. He ought to withdraw it, because it is entirely inappropriate.

MR SPEAKER: Continue, Ms Follett. I will not accept that.

Mr Hird: I withdraw it.

MS FOLLETT: Mr Moore knows as well as I do that the Labor performance on budgets, and on education budgets in particular, has been entirely consistent. Earlier in debate we heard Mr Stefaniak try to prove where Labor had been duplicitous. He read page after page of the Hansard from years ago. He read on in vain. In fact, he had an extension of time so he could read some more. He still read in vain. The fact of the matter is that the speeches that he read out that I had made, that Mr Wood had made and that other members had made were totally honest and were totally in accord with the budget which we had presented at the time, and Mr Moore was obliged to concede that in the end.

Mr Speaker, I do not have Mr Moore's actual motion before me, but there is no doubt in my mind that what has occurred over the education budget in the 1995-96 Appropriation Bill could have been avoided. All of those on the crossbenches knew how to avoid it. The fact of the matter is that they attempted to grandstand on particular issues. They knew as well as anybody else that the action they were proposing to take could not succeed. They had the Government's legal advice; they had our legal advice; they had your legal advice, Mr Speaker. Still they continued to grandstand.

Mr Speaker, what Mr Moore did not ever concede was that the proposition put by Labor on how to deal with this problem was one which could have succeeded if only it had attracted sufficient votes. I think I am giving Mr Moore a great deal of credit, more credit than he is due, in allowing that he may have been genuine in his stand on the education budget. Mr Speaker, the alternative proposition is that, by taking a course of action which he knew could not possibly succeed, he never intended to amend anything.

Mr Hird: You are not reflecting on a vote that was taken earlier, are you?

MS FOLLETT: No more than anybody else has, Mr Hird. Mr Moore, I believe, is simply trying to save face and to say to Labor, "I hate you as much as I hate the Liberals, if not more". I think it is an entirely pathetic proposition moved by a person who is probably at least as tired as the rest of us are and is clearly not thinking at his best. If he had been, he would have seen this for the petty and vindictive antic that it is.

Mr Speaker, no double standards whatsoever have been adopted by Labor. We adopted the same approach to amending the budget in 1993 - that is, we opposed it - as we did in 1995. Mr Moore cannot find fault with that. He has changed his mind; I have not. Everybody over there has changed their minds; nobody over here has. Let us get it straight about who has done what. Mr Speaker, I think that Mr Moore is deserving of

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