Page 2086 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, Mr Speaker, as I said, there are two characteristics of the debate. The first is the absolute lack of any contribution of a practical or rational kind from Mr Berry, and the other is that once again this former Treasurer, who will pretend to be a Treasurer again at some future time, has demonstrated absolutely and irrevocably that she has not a smidgin of an idea about public accounting or what the accounts mean. And that is on the record, too.
MR WOOD (9.02): Mr Speaker, I am not sure that the Chief Minister understands the traditional concept of the supply debate. In any parliament in Australia the supply debate provides an opportunity for members to debate in very general terms almost any matters - because most of the matters that we discuss have reference to money - and to discuss them also in very specific terms.
Mr Kaine: That is fine, as long as it is the truth and we understand what we are saying.
MR WOOD: I was intrigued to hear you say that you had not intended to enter the debate. It was Mr Duby who tabled the Bill. As you are the Treasurer, I am surprised at that approach. I think you should have been a little more aware of the way that the supply debate is undertaken in other parliaments in this country.
I want to make reference to two matters affecting education. I will say at this stage that I will make that reference and I will join the debate again in the detail stage, as I am sure we all will, to query the Government's policies on matters affecting money. It is also traditional at this time for opposition and government backbenchers to be able to ask questions of the Government, of the Treasurer, or, in this case as well, the Finance Minister or specific Ministers, and to get answers from them on the questions that we raise. I trust that that fine Australian tradition will be continued today.
I was concerned to see in the paper yesterday a statement by the chief education officer, if that is still the title - or, if that title does not exist any more, the secretary to the ministry - who was complaining that the actions of protesters about school closures - the parents in the various communities - had helped to blow out the budget. It seemed to me a strange statement for a departmental officer to be making. It seemed more the province of a Minister if, indeed, any such statement was justified.
During the early stages of the debate on school closures, on this side of the house we said that the Minister was going to spend more than he was going to save. And that was certainly the case in the first year of his program. It seems passing strange that the secretary of the department should blame the communities for defending their schools. But it is a point I want to take on and ask the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .