Page 3978 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 23 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: What on?
MR MOORE: The Chief Minister interjects, "What on?". On an area in which I have some expertise, and it has grown, as you well know. It was on the issue of drugs and their impact in our community. As well there was a series of meetings with other members of the community on a range of issues. The Chief Minister smiles because she thinks that the fact that I take on an issue like that is in some ways strange. I have taken on those issues and the other issues that were mentioned because they are issues of social justice.
Mr Wood: Absolutely.
MR MOORE: Indeed. I accept that Mr Wood would pay credit there. The other issue I would like to raise is that in the time that I was away I spent quite a number of days in national parks discussing with national park rangers a range of issues. That was arranged through Mr Wood's department and I appreciated the help. I came back and I prepared a report to our committee, which is likely to take on a reference to deal with that. I want you to understand that I am paid to do the work rather than being paid to be at work. That is what I do. I also suggest that we ought to be measuring outcomes. I have seen a nod from the Chief Minister, who has just taken a trip to Japan, involving an expenditure of some $180,000 of taxpayers' money, on which I have never commented negatively - not once - and I do not intend to now. But I will draw a contrast. On my recent trip to the United States not a dollar of taxpayers' money was spent.
Ms Follett: Except your salary. What about your salary?
MR MOORE: The Chief Minister now interjects, "Except your salary". Now she wants to add to the $180,000 the salaries that were paid on her trip to Japan.
Mr Kaine: Was American taxpayers' money used?
MR MOORE: No. Well, yes, perhaps it was. In the next two years, when we are looking at cuts, what we should be thinking about is exactly the same thing. We should be thinking about outcomes. What are going to be the outcomes? This Minister has failed to understand the outcomes of his own actions and the actions of the Treasurer in preparing these budget cuts. He has not been able to tell us what the outcomes of these cuts are going to be, because he has not known where they were going to occur.
It is quite clear that this motion is entirely appropriate. You have a choice, and that is to relook at your budget and to change it. Madam Speaker, there are two amendments to my motion. The first is by Mrs Carnell which, although I feel that it was appropriate to concentrate the motion on the Minister, I am prepared to accept. The second one was moved by Mr Stevenson and it changes the motion from a lack of confidence motion to a censure motion. I am quite happy to accept that, Madam Speaker, because I want a clear message sent to this Government that we are terribly dissatisfied with these cuts. There is time for you to reconsider them before Thursday.
Mr Connolly: Do you want to justify your 1991 statement?
MR MOORE: No.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .