Page 2085 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (8.58): I had not really intended to speak in this debate because it is merely to do with the tabling of the Supply Bill, and I would not have thought that anybody would have found too much to complain about in that. But, once again, the debate has been marked by two characteristics from the Opposition.
First of all, Mr Berry cranks up speech No. 1. It is the same old speech; it does not matter what the topic is, out comes the same old speech. If we have heard it once, we have heard it 50 times in the last six months because it is the only speech he has. I used to call it speech No. 362, but he has only one. He brings out speech No. 1, dresses it up a bit, changes the date and regurgitates it again. So, as usual, Mr Speaker, Mr Berry has contributed absolutely nothing to this debate. When the historians come to look at this Assembly in the future, one of the marks of it will be the absolute inability of Mr Berry to contribute anything to the debate on any subject at any time. That is the first characteristic of the debate tonight.
The second characteristic is that the former Treasurer has once again demonstrated that she knows absolutely nothing about public accounting or any aspect of it. I notice that she went very quiet during question time when I referred to the brackets around the numbers, which she did not understand. She obviously does not understand even the beginning of what the Treasurer's Advance is about either, because she quoted at length from an answer to a question that I gave to the Assembly, quite recently, where I explained the transactions on the Treasurer's Advance during the course of this year.
If she had bothered to read it, or if she had really understood what she read, she would have noted the explanation. I gave a comprehensive answer to the question. (Quorum formed) Had Ms Follett read it, or if she read it, had she even a beginning of an understanding about the information that I gave her, she would have noted that the information was there in the answer; those were, in most cases, merely advances from the Treasurer's account, all of which were to be adjusted before the fiscal year was over. In other words, they were transfer entries where payments needed to be made immediately and they were made out of the Treasurer's Advance by way of advance; they were to be subsequently adjusted in the books and the money was to be repaid to the Treasurer's Advance account.
There was only a very small net figure out of all those transactions which was, in fact, payments which would not be refunded. That was all in the answer to the question. In fact, it is all in Hansard. But, of course, if Ms Follett had read it, she simply would not have understood that. It is quite obvious that she has no understanding whatsoever of the nature of the Treasurer's Advance and the transactions that can be made into it and out of it during the course of a year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .