Page 4293 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery: Again, I should say.
MR MOORE: Oh, again outside the house. Mr Collaery, I am drawing attention to the basic equipment allowance of $180. It clearly is done separately as an acquittal. It was clearly given inappropriately, not through your fault. I stated that to start off with. But I am now saying to you that the appropriate thing for you to do is to return the money. It is very simple - return the money. I am giving you the opportunity to avoid becoming a Leisha Harvey.
Mr Collaery: A $400,000 house in Reid, thank you!
MR MOORE: I wish it was. The next thing that concerned me greatly was the notion of adjustments that are made within the budget. I think it is appropriate that adjustments be made within the budget, but that also has to be able to come under scrutiny. I believe it is the case that government departments are in the position of being able to justify no cuts in their expenditure by saying, "We are making a certain amount of cuts", and then making adjustments on top of that and having no way of comparing the adjustments from one year to the next year. When it really boils down to the crunch we have to work out what we are spending this year, what we are spending next year, do a comparison and then try to determine whether or not we have made real cuts.
In looking through it, it became quite clear that there were no cuts in this budget. The capital expenditure had a 15 per cent increase and there was a 9.3 per cent increase in the recurrent expenditure, or 2.3 per cent in real terms. The only areas to suffer cuts were the areas of education and the arts and technical and further education. They are the only places to suffer real cuts, and you can find that in the - - -
Mr Collaery: He does not understand. He cannot understand. He has no idea of reading a document.
MR MOORE: Mr Collaery once again interjects, "He has no idea". Well, Mr Collaery, the reality is that the people of Canberra can see through and accept that some people have some credibility and other people have none.
The credibility question also brings us to the issue in education and the misleading of the Assembly committee by Dr Willmot, which is reported in paragraph 2.13. Dr Willmot, of course - - -
Mr Connolly: Mr Willmot.
MR MOORE: Mr Willmot then secured an apology in the Canberra Times which I consider totally inappropriate. What clearly happened is that he was given verbal advice but
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .