Page 1428 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure that members opposite appreciate that there is a budget process, and that that report of that committee and our response occurred after the last budget was set. Accordingly, I am sure that the Treasurer will not be offended if I say that there is a new policy proposal in our current processes dealing with a proposition - if not yet agreed to or approved by the ministry as a whole - seeking a grant - I think it is basically within my colleague Mr Humphries' portfolio - to set up a non-government organisation, preferably, for a sobering up facility of the type that we appear, as far as I know, in this house to generally support.
I make the point that, even if Mr Berry's Bill were passed now, we do not have the budget process and the funds and the appropriations law on our side to suddenly divert $200,000 or $300,000 into a project of that nature.
Mr Berry: It is discretionary.
MR COLLAERY: Budgeting is not discretionary. I will leave it to my colleague Mr Kaine to comment on that at some later time, but it really is not. The funds required for this laudatory - - -
Mr Berry: Otherwise you would rule it out under standing order 200.
MR COLLAERY: I will come to that, Mr Berry. Do not invite me to, because on my advice we could easily do that.
Mr Berry: You cannot, because your Law Office told us that you could not.
MR COLLAERY: Through you, Mr Speaker - I will complete the point I was making. I make the point that, in law or not, we do not disagree with Mr Berry's Bill as a statement of good social intent, but the fact is that to give practical implementation to it prior to the budget process is not a possibility in any event.
So, what I say to the Opposition is that we wish to adjourn this debate and one of my colleagues following me will no doubt do that. We are not saying that we are taking it off the agenda at all. I have made that very clear statement in the light of our existing commitment in our response to the Social Policy Committee. During that adjournment period, we need to consider a couple of issues, and they are: The type of amendments that we would want to suggest to the Bill, which would, on my advice from the Law Office, require a rewrite - I am not saying that in any adverse context - - -
Ms Follett: They wrote it.
MR COLLAERY: Yes. I am not saying that in any adverse context. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Law Office wrote it. I am referring to the Law Office; I am
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .