Page 3032 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry talked about the fact that the Labor Party was not going to be distracted from the main game; but he did not define what the main game was. The main game, surely, is to deliver the services that this community requires, at minimal cost to the community, not in the form of a high-cost system where people are taxed large sums of money so that they can get high-cost delivery of services in return. The objective of government surely should be to provide minimal-cost services with minimal taxes being taken out of the pockets of the people that are supporting the system. If Mr Berry had defined the main game in that way, he might have had a lot of different things to say.
I get a bit fed up with the rhetoric. Mr Berry, of all people, said a great deal about social justice in Labor's budget. He said that it was a Labor budget through and through; that it was a socially just budget. Mr Berry himself has been a great beneficiary of social justice. The Council on the Ageing was refused additional support while instantaneously Mr Berry was given about $10,000 for more staff. It is very curious that, at about the same time, Mr Berry was the beneficiary of $30,000 out of the public purse to get him off the hook on the VITAB matter. I know what he means by social justice. He is not interested in whether the community out there, including the ageing, have their needs taken care of. As long at Mr Berry's personal needs are taken care of, that is social justice. So, I must say that I am not impressed by Mr Berry lecturing the Opposition - and that is what he did for 15 minutes - from a position which is pretty weak.
Mrs Grassby: Was that "lechering"?
MR KAINE: I said "lecturing". You want to listen carefully. Take your earplugs out. He did lecture us at great length. He also referred scathingly to the Priorities Review Board. It is interesting to note that the Priorities Review Board made a very large number of wide-ranging recommendations. I think that, if Mr Berry goes back and reviews those recommendations and looks at what the Labor Government has done for the last three years, he will discover that many of the Priorities Review Board's recommendations have been put into effect. This is the Priorities Review Board that he disparages and writes off so scathingly.
One recommendation that comes to mind, which he referred to, was the disposal of surplus and redundant public assets. I would remind Mr Berry that one of the things that the Government did only last year was to sell - - - (Quorum formed) It is nice to have a Minister in the house. Now they are both leaving. We do not have a "duty stooge" at all. One of the things that the Government did only last year was to sell surplus Parks and Gardens works depots. That was one of the things that the Priorities Review Board recommended. Is it not interesting that the Government disparages the Priorities Review Board, but it does not mind putting into effect the recommendations that it made and then claiming some sort of credit for itself.
This matter of public importance, which has been brought forward by the Government, is quite curious. It talks about two things. First of all, it talks about the need to guard against savage budget cuts. There is plenty of evidence from the Government's own reports to suggest that some very significant budget cuts are capable of being achieved if only the Government will bite the bullet. To a large extent, the debate has centred on health. I do not know why, because there is a $1.3 billion budget out there and health is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .