Page 2438 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: I am not the Temporary Deputy Speaker, Ms Follett. You might refer her to standing order 58.
MR LAMONT: We are talking here about the same words distilled into a local policy that has been used to encapsulate or to enshrine Fightback. That is all Mr Kaine really has to offer. He talks about incentives for business. Let us look at some of the incentives he and his party support: A $30m cut to government research and advisory bodies in the ACT; a $53.31m cut in ACT management services; a $64.2m cut in Administrative Services in the ACT; a $4m cut in sports funding in the ACT; a $9.76m cut in government program advertising; $104m to be lopped off Defence in the ACT; over $17m cut from education in the ACT.
Mrs Carnell: What has this to do with the budget?
MR LAMONT: There will be $12m off Health, Mrs Carnell; $66m out of Industrial Relations in the ACT; $5.83m out of Science and Technology; $12.4m from Industry and Commerce. There are lots of incentives there for small business! They are the cuts you are supporting in the ACT. And you have the temerity to stand up here and criticise this budget. But let me go on. Not only can you not stand up here with any degree of propriety and talk about lack of incentive in our budget; what happens when your own figures and your own policies are used? It shows just how bankrupt your statements are.
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Lamont asked me, when I was leaving the chamber a little while ago, whether I was coming back. I am sure that he wanted me to hear what he had to say. I have not yet heard him say one word about his Government's budget. What is this debate about? I thought it was about the ACT budget, but he has not said one word about it yet. When are you going to draw him back to the subject of the debate?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, there is a very interesting standing order that I have now paid a little more attention to than before.
Mr Kaine: Did Mr Lamont draw your attention to it?
MADAM SPEAKER: No; it is because we have never discussed this sort of Bill before, Mr Kaine. Standing order 58(b) states:
... on the motion for agreement in principle to appropriation bills for the ordinary annual services of the Executive, matters relating to public affairs may be debated.
In other words, the digression rule and the irrelevancy rule are suspended. Thank you, Mr Kaine, for drawing it to my attention. I think standing order 58(b) does give us a little leniency.
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, they should crow as well. If I were sitting over there, after listening to the speech from the Leader of the Opposition I, too, would be hanging my head in shame.
Let us go on, so that the people of Canberra can get a true comparison between the proper, responsible budget delivered by the Follett Labor Government and what these people are proposing for them. Along with all of those other cuts, they are suggesting that there be a $7.15m cut for Housing. I suppose that that says, "Don't worry about them; chuck them out on the street". That is what your
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .