Page 2853 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Within this program members might recall that the Estimates Committee in its examination of the Government's budget made a recommendation concerning the proposal to fence Stage 88 to allow hirers to charge admission fees. The Government accepts the Estimates Committee's recommendation on that matter. So we will be looking at other options, but not including the one that was put forward in the budget.
MR SPEAKER: I might just remind Ministers that when we are addressing each section that comes under their jurisdiction they can speak as many times as they wish, so Ministers do not have to try to remember the points raised by individual speakers on the other side.
MR STEFANIAK (3.50): Mr Speaker, in relation to the Chief Minister's Department, I move:
That the proposed expenditure under division 30.1.01 be reduced by $250,000.
In relation to this - and we are all feeling our way here - I would refer members to budget paper No. 5, in relation to which I seek to reduce expenditure by $250,000. On page 34 of budget paper No. 5 we have consolidated fund expenditure, division 30, recurrent costs and agency costs totalling $20,532,000. I believe this would be taken up in other operating costs of $7,549,000.
I would refer members to page 11 of budget paper No. 9, which deals with highlights for women and sets out a number of items there. There are three items there which, I submit to the Assembly, can either be reduced substantially or done away with in toto to enable us to deduct a quarter of a million dollars from the Chief Minister's Department expenditure in division 30.
Mr Wood: That is a no-confidence motion.
MR STEFANIAK: It is certainly not a no-confidence motion. It is a reduction in expenditure.
Mrs Grassby: It is a no-confidence motion.
MR STEFANIAK: It is nothing of the kind. There are three items there anyway: antidiscrimination activities, $100,000; women's enterprise service, $150,000; and women's employment strategy, $50,000. I understand, in regard to the antidiscrimination activities, that some of that money is in relation to the ACT providing antidiscrimination activities and the rest is in relation to the Commonwealth antidiscrimination activities concerning the Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, I would think that, although the figure has not, I am told, been finalised and the exact division known, $50,000 could be saved there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .