The leader of the ACT Opposition, John Stanhope, has announced that his party is opposed to the Government’s $27 million free school bus plan. That is a reasonable policy decision to make. Labor had obviously come to the conclusion that a free bus scheme that applied to children travelling more than a certain distance after-school favoured people going to private schools because by and large those going to government schools tend to attend the closest government school and therefore do not qualify for the free bus. Further, Labor argues that the money would be better spent more directly on education, on such things as reducing class sizes, increasing school facilities and providing textbooks and the like.
Leaving aside for the moment Mr Stanhope’s earlier statement that he would not make any new policy statements until closer to the election, Labor’s promise to scrap the free bus scheme if it comes to office is a sensible position to put at the next election.
However, to go the next step and state that the party will attempt to prevent the scheme getting off the ground when the Budget comes before the Legislative Assembly is another matter. That step would require an amendment to the Appropriation Bill, specifically prohibiting spending on a free buses and that would get the Opposition and crossbenchers into logical and legislative difficulties. Then might even be forced to legislate for compulsory bus fares as it is difficult to see how they can legislate to prohibit the Government from providing a free service.
The difficulty for the opposition and crossbenchers is the nature of Budget legislation. At Budget time, it governments are typically announce a range of measures in fine detail. But these are no more than indications of spending intention. Legislative reality is different. The Appropriation Bill 2001-2002 which was attached to Budget papers brought down last month by the Treasurer and Chief Minister, Gary Humphries, contained just eight pages. Nowhere in this Bill are the words “”free school buses”. Nowhere in this Bill are amounts of money set aside to provide those free buses. Rather, the Appropriation Bill lays out quite large sums of money under various departmental heads. The Bill appropriates these sums to each department to spend without stipulating the detail. The fact that the Appropriation Bill does not lay out detail is of critical importance, especially in a system like the ACT where there is only one house and minority government is the order of the day.
The nature or the Appropriation Bill helps delineate the separate executive and legislative powers. Spending is an essentially executive power. The legislative power on the other hand is a power to lay out laws that will apply generally to all in the community.
It would be helpful for the stability of government in the ACT if the convention that the major party opposition support the government’s budget were upheld. Economic management and the exercise of spending priorities are matters best judged at the end of the electoral cycle. It would be better to have a convention that governments raise and spend money and are judged after the fixed three-year term. If, however, a majority on the floor of the Assembly, however, feel that a government no longer deserves to stay in office for whatever reason, it should use a no-confidence motion to vote it out. Picking a line items in a Budget should not be an option, but it is difficult to see how such a convention could be constitutionally enforced. Such things rely on the goodwill and good sense of the MLAs.
No one in the Community should expect the Opposition to side with crossbenchers to pick off various Budget items; a promise to act when in government should be enough. The Government has decided to spend money on providing free buses and the people will get their opportunity to judge them on this and other matters in October.