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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (21 June) . . Page.. 2369 ..

MR RUGENDYKE: No, I agree. It was badly prioritised. I said so in my report and I think I was quoted on the front page of The Chronicle as saying that. We would like to see some of that money go to reducing class sizes across the board. That was in my report. We would like to see more school counsellors. That was in my report. So, yes, it was badly prioritised.

It is important to note the hypocrisy here. Mr Corbell identified a badly prioritised amount of money. He referred to $125,000 being allocated for the upgrade of lights in Macarthur House. I agree, Simon: it is badly prioritised; it is a case of a bad priority. Let us think about this carefully. That $125,000 greenhouse money was badly prioritised. I am with you, Simon, on that; I agree with you. So let us amend that out as well. If the Assembly is able to take bits and pieces out of budgets, let us take out this badly prioritised item. I am at one with Mr Corbell that it should be taken out and I suggest that Mr Berry should adjust his amendment to include the deletion of the $125,000. If we are to be consistent, fair dinkum and genuine, the amendment should also seek to take out this greenhouse money. Let us see the colour of your amendment.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. All remarks should be addressed to the chair. Ms Tucker, do you wish to have another 10 minutes?

MS TUCKER: Can I speak to Mr Berry's amendment?


MS TUCKER: That is what I would like to do, because I have used the two 10-minute allocations.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: By all means.

MS TUCKER (5.41): First, I think I have made it very clear in this place what the Greens think of the free school bus initiative. I put up a motion myself on this initiative, and I supported Labor yesterday in their attempt to put the brakes on this government's attempt to spend this money quickly before the election.

I have said quite clearly that, in the Greens' view, this is a very poorly thought-out initiative, it does not effectively target anything other than possible electoral advantage. It clearly does not target disadvantage in the community. It is not a useful initiative for education. It is not a well thought-out initiative for the environment.

It was not preceded by consultation with the community. It was not even preceded by an analysis of its projected costs in the long term. That is a shocking public policy process. That is an example of how government should not work. I have made the point, I believe, quite clearly already, so I am not going to speak to it any further tonight, except that I am speaking now to Mr Berry's amendment, in particular.

I am not going to support this particular initiative to address the free bus scheme, not because I think the scheme is a good idea. As I have already said, I think it is an appalling idea. I supported Mr Berry's legislation yesterday because it was a good way of trying to address this problem. Obviously, that did not get the support of Mr

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