Page 864 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
budget, than has the Canberra Times, which printed that the Supply Bill was seeking $600,000. Had that been the case, we would all be in a great deal of difficulty indeed. Mr Kaine has pointed out, Madam Speaker, that the sum sought for supply is not precisely five-twelfths, and there are some issues that I will address in regard to that. In fact, there are some issues where the figure is not five-twelfths and I will tell you what they are.
Firstly, Madam Speaker, in capital works, which is Division 200 in the Supply Bill, members will see that what we are looking for in supply is nearly $92m. You must remember that this is out of a potential capital works construction program of $140m to $150m. It is clearly well over five-twelfths there. In fact, we are looking for about 60 per cent for the capital works in the Supply Bill. A further factor is along similar lines - major plant and equipment. That figure, which amounts to about $8m, is in fact a full year figure. The reason for that, Madam Speaker, is that for major plant and equipment the Government has yet to make the decision on just which items will be included in that expenditure; so the full amount has been included. It is about $8m.
There is a further matter concerning the last budget. The Government made a decision to reduce staff, and that involves some redundancy payments. About $6m of that redundancy money, Madam Speaker, has been carried over into this supply period. That obviously is for the reason that the redundancies in the budget obviously were not all achieved in the time in which they were expected to be achieved. So that has been rolled over into this supply period.
A further factor that I am sure Mr Kaine will be interested in is that the Comcare payments, about $12m, are in fact 100 per cent. So 100 per cent of Comcare premiums are included in the Supply Bill, presumably because they need to be paid in that period. Also, of course, there is 100 per cent of the Treasurer's Advance, and $8m is included there. That adds up to about $125m and just about accounts for the discrepancy to which Mr Kaine drew attention. I hope that clears that up for him.
Madam Speaker, other speakers canvassed issues more broadly, as is their right in a debate of this kind. Mr Humphries chose to concentrate on education and health and I found his remarks interesting in that they were particularly illogical. There is a great discrepancy between Mr Humphries's views on what ought to be done in education and what ought to be done in health. On the education side, Mr Humphries is urging the Government to give parents a real choice of public or private education and, of course, he is urging us, in particular, to expand their choices for private education. I am always intrigued, Madam Speaker, that when people speak of private education they then refer, in the same breath, to the grammar school or the AME School, and the one sector that they omit is, in fact, the biggest part of the private school sector, the Catholic sector. It was the Catholic sector to which the Government gave special attention last year in the budget. We reversed a decision taken by Mr Humphries and restored to the Catholic sector nearly $2m which Mr Humphries had sought to take away from the neediest part of the private school sector.
Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, there is still this enormous contradiction. Mr Humphries says that in the education system people deserve to have a real choice; but in the hospital system they do not, according to him. Mr Humphries says that there are people in public hospitals who should not be there. Mr Humphries believes that they ought to be in private hospitals. This is a clear
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .