Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2320 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
dismiss. It is a serious underlying discontent about his approach to environment policy and funding for environment policy. It needs to be addressed. This budget fails miserably.
There is one final point I would like to make. The government invites this budget and says the approval of this budget will amount to a vote of confidence in the government itself. It will resign if this budget is not passed. If this government presents this approval as a vote of confidence in itself, and argues that it will resign if that vote of confidence is not carried, then this opposition has an obligation to respond to that by saying, "Do we have confidence in the administration of the Carnell government?" Not in any particular aspect of the budget, although of course those are legitimate concerns as well, but "Do we have the confidence in the administration of the Carnell government?" This opposition has the clear obligation to say, "We do not, and we will not be voting for it."
MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (9.13): We've had two speakers from the opposition, so I assume one from the government would be a fair balance.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Flexible, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: I move amendment No 3, circulated in my name:
Page 5, Part 9, of the table of appropriations, omit the part and substitute the following part:
Part 9
Department of Urban Services 232,336,000 60,876,000 1,156,000 294,368,000
Urban Services
I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
This simply is the first of a series of amendments which will incorporate the ACT WorkCover into the budget. This particular amendment provides that the appropriation for the Department of Urban Services should be reduced by about $3 million to account for the creation of a separate ACT WorkCover.
While I am on my feet I would like to make a couple of short contributions to this debate. We have heard from Mr Corbell a series of complaints about the budget, reasons why we cannot possibly support the budget. There is only one comment to which I feel I need to respond, and that is the criticism about joint ventures. He says, "The problems with joint ventures have to be addressed. Why has this government not done anything about that?" The simple answer to the question is that the government hasn't entered into, with one small exception, any joint ventures. That's all we have done about it; we've not repeated Labor's mistakes. We have not entered into any joint ventures.
Mr Berry: Except for one.
MR HUMPHRIES
: Except for one small exception, and that was when we had to deal with the joint venture that the previous Labor government had established at Dunlop, where the land was found to be environmentally sensitive and the development could not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .