Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1142 ..

Mrs Carnell: That is exactly the way we are doing it.

MS McRAE: But we do not know, under the new administrative units and programs - - -

Mrs Carnell: It is the same thing.

MS McRAE: But it does not say it there, so we cannot come back.

Ms Follett: You have four weeks to get it right.

MS McRAE: That is right. We are trying to tell you that we want to come back under the new administrative units and programs and have a look at what the Supply Bill says and then look at the changes that were authorised under the various Acts if they were transferred from one program to another. The contention is that, with the new listing that you have given us, money can be shifted from non-government schooling to government schooling. We have no knowledge of what the break-up of those programs is. Similarly, we have no knowledge of what $75,190,000 means under the Chief Minister's Department now.

Mrs Carnell: That is what the other line is for.

MS McRAE: But the other line relates to old programs. We are interested in the new programs. This is the detail that we need.

Mr De Domenico: Wait for the budget.

MS McRAE: We do not want to wait for the budget. We are asking you for a supply Bill that offers the level of detail that we need to be able to scrutinise properly what happens within those programs. You have four weeks to do it. The motion allows you a bit of time. We will pursue the detail with you for the entire four weeks until we get what we need. Thank you, Mrs Carnell.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.45): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MRS CARNELL: Let me just elaborate. The column that says “Old programs” does not mean that they are old figures. The line that says “Old programs” does not mean old money. The money, as you can see, equates across the two. It shows what it would have looked like had we reported in the old format. I assumed that that was what you wanted. The $75,760,000 equates across. That is how it splits up. This is this appropriation Bill. It is not something else; it is this appropriation Bill. It is just a different way. We have reported on the left-hand side the way we thought you wanted us to report. We have reported on the other side the way it is reported in the Supply Bill.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .