Page 1214 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
said that, I believe that he should retract it. If he said "the Government's slush fund", I presume that is permissible. I seek your direction on that, Mr Speaker, so that the record does not show it as Mr Humphries' slush fund. I did not hear it clearly.
Mrs Grassby: No, he did not say "the Minister's slush fund". He said "the Government's slush fund".
Mr Collaery: Let him speak for himself, Mrs Grassby.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Mr Collaery.
MR BERRY: I will ease the tension that is obviously being suffered by Mr Collaery. There is an issue before the Government whereby Ministers will be deciding what to do with the community development fund, and the slush fund that I refer to is therefore a ministerial slush fund in a political sense. I do not know whether the tensions are now eased, but I sincerely hope they are. I do not think we need any further interruptions in relation to the matter.
The Bills that have been introduced will, of course, be supported by the Labor Opposition, but there has been some confusion amongst the community as a result of the stand in relation to this levy by the Liberal element of the Alliance Government. As I recall, Mrs Nolan opposed this levy in the debate about the estimates in the lead-up to the Follett budget. Of course, the community would have expected, with the development of the new style of government, that there might have been a change in that levy, as Mr Humphries had opposed it in the past. That does not do much for the community because it creates confusion and it reflects badly on those Liberals in terms of the way that they function as part of the Government. Of course, it also reflects badly on the Government as a whole, and quite properly so.
One issue of concern in the Bill is the lack of information on collections of the levy from uninsured people. I have had some fruitful discussions with Mr Duby, and my understanding is that he will make some response in relation to that during his reply to the debate. In closing, I say that the Labor Opposition will support both these Bills.
MR COLLAERY (Deputy Chief Minister) (4.49): I wish to speak in support of the Bills. Firstly, the introduction of the levy is necessary to ensure that the ACT Ambulance Service is less reliant on the budget for its financing by having access to a larger revenue base - that is, the health-insured persons who comprise about 40 per cent of the ACT population, rather than members of the voluntary scheme who constitute about 30 per cent. In 1989-90 it is anticipated that the Government will subsidise the ambulance service to the tune of $1.2m, with the balance of funds coming from voluntary subscriptions - that is, $900,000 - and charges for non-subscribers, $400,000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .