Page 2129 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: Out-turn prices are based upon a situation where expenditure is indexed by the non-farm GDP implicit price deflator. Wages and salaries are not indexed at all. Revenue is indexed by the CPI. What that achieves is a situation where you get a totally artificial favourable position. The figures I used were based on constant 1994-95 prices, which is the only way to get an accurate picture.
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I ask that you rule that out of order because Mrs Carnell sought to introduce new matter.
MADAM SPEAKER: It is done. I will ponder on that the next time I am asked about standing order 47.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DUTY (VALIDATION) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 14 June 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (7.43): Madam Speaker, the Opposition - - -
Mr Connolly: Are you going to release the budget strategy or is that still a secret?
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Kaine has the floor.
Mr Lamont: Mr Kaine, you would have written a better budget document than the one your leader presented.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the Financial Institutions Duty (Validation) Bill, which I understood was the matter before the house.
Mr Lamont: We thought it was too.
MR KAINE: You have been carrying on a cross-chat that had nothing to do with it, Mr Lamont.
Madam Speaker, in the last two Bills that were debated the Liberal Party saw the merit of the Government's position and supported the Bills. I am afraid that in this case we have come to the parting of the ways. There are two fundamental issues here. One is the question of retrospectivity of legislation. The Chief Minister noted when tabling this Bill that she did not particularly like retrospectivity of legislation, but in this case she saw some justification for it. The Liberal Party does not like retrospectivity of legislation either, and we do not see that in this case there is justification for it, any more than in many other cases where it would be in the interests of the Government to claim retrospectivity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .