Page 2854 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to the women's enterprise service and the women's employment strategy, I believe both those are unnecessary items of expenditure and that $200,000 can be saved there, totalling a quarter of a million dollars. Those are the areas, I submit to the Assembly, in the Chief Minister's Department where money can be saved and the amount of expenditure reduced accordingly.
In relation to the women's enterprise services, this would seem to be an expenditure to artificially assist businesses. Such schemes in the past have been monumental failures, and I cannot see why this one would be any different. My colleague Mrs Nolan is able to speak further on this because she has been contacted by a number of women in business and a number of women's groups who have expressed concern in relation to this. So we have had some comments from the public. Also, I would submit that the $50,000 for the women's employment strategy is unnecessary and, indeed, that the same situation could be arrived at by use of the current funds within the departmental structure available to the Chief Minister.
MR MOORE (3.55): Mr Speaker, in a statement I made briefly before, I said that, whilst I disagreed with a number of things in this budget, I was prepared to support the Government's right to pursue its own budget and to pursue certain areas within it. My colleague and friend Mr Stefaniak has taken a particular stance to reduce money provided specifically for women. This does not come as a great surprise, with his very right-wing attitude to a number of things, whether it is move-on powers or whatever. I suppose that he would perceive these as "lefty" issues.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Please stick to the point, Mr Moore.
Mrs Grassby: That is exactly the point.
MR SPEAKER: We are debating a reduction in funds, not Mr Moore's personal point of view.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, the reduction of funds is aimed specifically at antidiscrimination activities. Mr Stefaniak has mentioned the women's enterprise service and the women's employment strategy. I think that Mr Stefaniak should recognise that, whilst the women's movement has had an incredible impact on job opportunities and work over the last 10 to 15 years, the situation is still such that half of our society, women, are in a disadvantaged position. That particularly applies to women who have taken time off to look after their family. Each one of these areas looks at finding ways to right that discrimination or to right that wrong.
It is questionable to look at reducing funds in a situation where the money is aimed at righting what has been a clear, overall wrong. I think Mr Stefaniak should reconsider the motion that he has put and realise that, whilst this may not be his own preferred method of going about that sort of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .