Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1465 ..
MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):
effect from the emergency services levy placed on insurance companies. In 2001 the car rego has been wound back a bit and the emergency services levy has gone.
In 1999 the government was rethinking its strategy after the sale of Actew was rejected. I will never forget the government's fervent desire to off-load Actew. I was less than a year in this job and I was told, in no uncertain terms, that the sale of Actew was an absolute must to preserve the future of our city. The government said that we had to sell Actew to address the operating loss and the superannuation debt. This budget proves again that there was another approach. This budget shows that plans to control the superannuation debt are on track and rams home just how right my decision was to oppose the sale of Actew two years ago.
My budget reply last year was reasonably short and sweet. It is a topic I have to raise again, particularly in light of the comments made by the shadow Treasurer in this place this morning. It is important that we put on the record the correct chain of events from last year so that there is no distortion. Yes, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I voted to block the budget last year, but my position was consistent and gave ample warning. The former Chief Minister stated publicly that the 2000-01 appropriation papers comprised an all or nothing budget. In the corresponding speech on 25 May last year, more than a month before the final budget vote, I made my intentions perfectly clear and I did not waver from them. I said the following at the time:
I expect that the members who wanted a shooting gallery will pass this aspect of the budget. I will not support this aspect of the budget and the Assembly should know full well that, if the Labor Party gains government, I would not support a shooting gallery in its budget, either.
I must remind members that the Liberal Party gave its members a conscience vote when the shooting gallery issue was debated. My conscience tells me that I cannot support this facility, so I cannot endorse financing it. It is not just a matter of giving the government its budget. This line in the budget is about a fundamental principle. If you want to approve financing for it, you will have to go and talk to the members who fundamentally support it.
... ... ...
Michael Moore and Kate Carnell joined Jon Stanhope and the Labor Party to make it happen. If this is an all or nothing budget, you are going to need the Labor Party to get it passed.
I could not have been clearer, and I am totally bemused that the shadow Treasurer is still whining because his party had a genuine decision to make. The luxury of opposing for opposition's sake was removed, and it was totally hypocritical to say that it is okay for the Labor Party to oppose budgets but deny me the same right.
I would also like to remind the shadow Treasurer that this surplus budget could well have been his to hand out. However, in the ensuing negotiations after the last budget was rejected, the only proposal that the Opposition Leader put forward was that he was prepared to take government but he was not prepared to drop the shooting gallery. He knew what he had to do to gain government. The Labor Party made their choice and the government made theirs, so it is Mr Humphries who is now in the position of spending Brewster's millions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .