Page 1213 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, one of the problems that I must bring to the attention of members is that that loss of revenue will have to be made up one way or another, and there has been some discussion about how that might occur. I suspect that there are a number of initiatives that the Government will be considering in making up that loss of revenue.
One of the issues that comes to mind, and one that relates to a demonstration outside this place at lunchtime today, is the community development fund, which was also mentioned by the Chief Minister. About $2.5m from the fund is unspent. There is a big question mark about the future of the fund. There is a big question mark about how changes to the fund might be implemented, whether they will involve proper consultation with the community and whether the allocation of CDF money to community organisations will be at the same level in the future as it has been in the past. For my money, I believe that savings will be sought by the Government as the community development fund is, if you like, absorbed into general revenue. Of course, if community organisations do not watch themselves, they will find a significant impact on their funding as a result.
Making up that lost revenue could also involve the health promotion fund, and there has been some discussion in this place about how allocation of funds from the health promotion fund might be made. Mr Humphries strenuously denies that there is anything wrong with what is going on at the moment, but I can say that a lot of community organisations are concerned that some of that money will find its way into places other than that one for which it was intended - health promotion.
Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not follow the relevance of discussions about the health promotion fund or the community development fund to the ambulance levy.
MR SPEAKER: Order! You are debating the issue, Mr Humphries. Relevance, please, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: It is entirely relevant, as Mr Humphries would be aware, because revenue has been lost as a result of the delay in getting this legislation into place. What I am discussing, if Mr Humphries has not worked it out already, is the options that the Government might explore in making up that lost revenue. It really comes down to how the Government wants to develop its slush fund, and that seems to be the case in respect of both of those funds that I have mentioned. Of course, the most important issue is the lack of consultation in relation to these matters. Even though Dr Kinloch strenuously denies the lack of consultation in his area, I think it is generally held - - -
Mr Collaery: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe Mr Berry said "the Minister's slush fund". If he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .