Page 1994 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
outcome of the federal budget—is a fair observation. I think that was always the intent behind it. So paragraph (1)(c) of Mr Smyth’s motion is quite fair enough. I think the call to reflect accurately in the ACT budget what those impacts will be is a good point as well. The intent of my amendment is to strip out the politics of this motion and simply move forward on the practical elements of Mr Smyth’s motion.
I will be moving an amendment to insert the word “financial” after “impact”. I think that is the intent of the motion. The other alternative when we talk about the full impact of the budget—this may be the way Mr Smyth intended it but I do not think it is a tenable way forward—is to have some sort of complete narrative on all the flow-on effects. Again, those matters will no doubt be canvassed in this place. They will be canvassed in the response speeches from members of the opposition. What we can objectively look for in the budget is a reflection of the financial impacts of the federal budget.
The other matters will be, to some extent, matters of debate and matters of perspective, and they are better taken up on the floor of the chamber. The budget papers are about presenting the financial situation of the ACT. I simply seek to clarify that with the amendment that I will be moving—that the budget should reflect those objective financial matters. The debate and analysis of the broader impact that others will seek to put forward can be taken up on the floor of the chamber and in the media and the places where that should be done. In that sense, I am keen to support parts of Mr Smyth’s motion. It is fair enough that those things are accurately reflected in the budget. I seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move:
(1) Omit subparagraphs (1)(a) and (b).
(2) In paragraph (2), before “impact”, insert “financial”.
I have explained the amendments. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Mr Smyth: Are you speaking, Andrew?
Mr Barr: I may speak in the debate, but if there are further speakers—
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.00): All right; I will close. In closing the debate, let me say that I find it quite extraordinary that the Treasurer of the ACT will not comment on this budget. That is the biggest indictment of this budget that we could expect. In startling, clear, political terms Andrew Barr has spoken his loudest by not saying a word about this Swan-Gillard 2013-14 budget. He has squibbed his responsibilities. He has betrayed the people of the ACT. I think his mutinous approach will be remembered by many for a long time to come.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video