Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 16 August 1974
Page: 1085

Senator EVERETT (Tasmania) - I should like to submit to the Senate that the amendment is misconceived for the following reasons. In the first place sub-clause (1) gives an unqualified right to each State to payment in accordance with the Schedule 'subject only to this Act'. In other words the right cannot be affected except by sub-clause (2). If the words 'only to the extent that the Treasurer is satisfied that they are required by the State' are taken out as the amendment seeks to do, it would mean that each year a State could be entitled to the moneys set out in the Schedule whether or not it had spent 40 per cent, 70 per cent or 90 per cent of the value of the approved programs. The contention of the Minister is that this is not a responsible way of looking at the matter. It is unfair to the rest of the States. The third point I make is that it would not be right to say that the Treasurer could capriciously say that he was not satisfied. His powers under sub-clause (2) are statutory and would have to be exercised bona fide for the purposes of the Act.

Suggest corrections