Page 1029 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Lawfully and procedurally, as the Chief Minister has indicated, that is a proper subject for supplementation under section 5 of the Appropriation Act. It is quite lawful. However, today in question time we heard suggestions on the other side that somehow the Ministers were not observing the law.
Mr Berry: I think it is true.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, Mr Berry's interjection says that he can prove it.
Mr Berry: No, I did not say that. I said, "I think it is true".
MR COLLAERY: You think it is true. Mr Speaker, why do they not prove it? I ask the Opposition through you, Mr Speaker: Why do they not come here and prove the claims they make? They do not make it. It is shameful and extraordinary for an Australian Labor Party to stand up here and criticise the budget overrun of $813,200, which has occurred as a result of the industrial relations activities of their friends, in many cases. When people in the Professional Officers Association, the other professional public service groups and the public sector unions look at these remarks that I am making, hopefully they will understand.
They will again disown, as they do, the Labor Party that purports to represent them but takes cheap shots at us when we concede award payments and set implementation guidelines which, in the case of my alleged blow-out, involve $813,000. So, shame on you, and it does you no credit. To continue this paradox in relation to a party that says that it reflects the social justice ethic, what poor taste they show in tackling some unanticipated expenditure in the welfare and concessions area. I will not go into detail; but clearly an attempt in my area to deal with low income earners and people on social benefits schemes, resulting in increased expenditure, becomes an acceptable target for criticism.
Were they sufficiently experienced in government, they would know that it is entirely outside the ability of governments to control expenditure in the provision of ad hoc services for people in the welfare and other categories. They know that; yet they made that criticism. My criticisms could go on about the paradox of the Australian Labor Party taking those points. I do not propose to read from a brief that I have. I will stick to some notes I have of what Ms Follett said.
One thing that struck me is that, while we were trying to maintain some of the program budgets in my area, a young person presented himself for intensive therapeutic and one-to-one care in an environment that cost us a cool $150,000 to discharge a social obligation to one distressed young soul. Then again, we have had to spend a very large sum setting up a special house in Ainslie to care for two
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .