❓ The opposition questions budget cuts to children, youth, and family violence services, while the minister defends the budget, citing carryover figures and accusing the opposition of misinterpreting the data.
AnsweredQoN 292Legislative Assembly
Asked
2 June 2004
Member
Portfolio
Community Development, Women’s
Interests, Seniors and Youth
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the Treasurer’s budget speech on 6 May in which he stated - . . . this Budget puts families first. And it is a reality in our community that some families, and in particular children, are in need. (1) Is the minister aware that her Government has cut funding for children and youth policies in the coming financial year by $25 000, which is a three per cent real cut? (2) Is the minister further aware that her Government has cut funding for family and domestic violence coordination in the coming financial year by $109 000, which is a 6.8 per cent real cut? (3) Is the minister also aware that her Government has increased funding to care and safety services - funding that seeks to reduce the occurrence and impact of all forms of abuse - by less than one per cent this financial year? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
And it is a reality in our community that some families, and in particular children, are in need.
(2) Is the minister further aware that her Government has cut funding for family and domestic violence coordination in the coming financial year by $109 000, which is a 6.8 per cent real cut? (3) Is the minister also aware that her Government has increased funding to care and safety services - funding that seeks to reduce the occurrence and impact of all forms of abuse - by less than one per cent this financial year? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
(3) Is the minister also aware that her Government has increased funding to care and safety services - funding that seeks to reduce the occurrence and impact of all forms of abuse - by less than one per cent this financial year? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
And it is a reality in our community that some families, and in particular children, are in need.
(2) Is the minister further aware that her Government has cut funding for family and domestic violence coordination in the coming financial year by $109 000, which is a 6.8 per cent real cut? (3) Is the minister also aware that her Government has increased funding to care and safety services - funding that seeks to reduce the occurrence and impact of all forms of abuse - by less than one per cent this financial year? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
(3) Is the minister also aware that her Government has increased funding to care and safety services - funding that seeks to reduce the occurrence and impact of all forms of abuse - by less than one per cent this financial year? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
(1)-(3) I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. As the shadow minister or opposition spokesperson for science, I suggest he take a lesson in reading budget papers and understanding figures. During the estimates committees, the Opposition had the chance to analyse and scrutinise our budget in great detail, which it did. I explained the process for carryover figures. The Opposition declined - it did not even bother - to accept that explanation. The explanation for the family violence unit funding was due entirely to the carryover from one financial year. It was also due to the fact that when the budget papers were constructed the unit did not know whether there would be a carryover. In fact, it thought there would be an overspend. I have explained this to the Opposition. The Opposition was given a full explanation by my financial people. If opposition members decline to understand the budget papers, they should not come into this Chamber to try to undermine this Government’s achievements in the area of children, child protection and domestic violence. The Leader of the National Party has got it wrong.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.