Page 865 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
contradiction, Madam Speaker. Mr Humphries puts forward to us the proposition that if you can afford to be in a private hospital that is where you ought to be; but, if you can afford to be in a private school, then you ought to have a choice. Clearly, he has not sorted out his own position now, even after he has had the pressure of portfolio responsibility for that matter lifted from his shoulders. I do not understand the contradiction in his arguments, Madam Speaker.
Mr Humphries: It was the starvation on the weekend that befuddled my mind.
MS FOLLETT: I would like to say - amongst Mr Humphries's twittering on about private hospital systems - that there is a provision in the ACT for additional private hospital beds and that provision has not been taken up. The beds were approved at John James. They have never been taken up. So, Madam Speaker, I find all of those comments by him hollow indeed.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of Ms Szuty and Mr Moore for the Supply Bill. I would like to assure Ms Szuty that, in merging the hospitals and public and community health programs to form one health program under the Department of Health, it is certainly not the Government's intention to provide less information. In fact, it was done because those two programs do operate from the same bank account and it is really an administrative matter. In the course of the Estimates Committee examination those separations will be provided and members will be able to see the amounts in both programs. We will certainly not be reducing the information available.
Mr Moore again canvassed broader issues. In particular, Mr Moore seems to be a convert to Mr Bill Mason's school of economic thought, and it is one that I must say has its attractions. It relies heavily on land tax. The difficulty that I have with it, Madam Speaker, is that it has not worked anywhere, and I am unwilling to experiment with it, particularly in our rather delicate situation.
Mr Humphries: Be bold, Rosemary.
MS FOLLETT: Mr Humphries urges me not to be cautious. I am going to ignore his urging on that. I believe, Madam Speaker, that it is a time for great prudence and for caution. We in fact expanded the land tax base in the last budget, and that was, for the ACT, groundbreaking legislation for which Mr Moore gave his support at the time. I believe that Mr Moore, in saying that land tax taxes the very wealthy, does not really reflect fully the ACT situation. We do not have Kerry Packers or Alan Bonds and so on in the ACT, although some of them are not very wealthy these days. Madam Speaker, while I applaud his intentions, all I can say is that it has not worked elsewhere and I really will be taking my usual fairly cautious approach to it.
Mr Moore has urged the Government to target inefficiencies in the public sector and in the delivery of services. I have asked for a review of all areas of government activity and it seems apparent to me that we would not, of course, be making savings where that would be detrimental to the service provided to the community; but that review has yet to be undertaken in any great detail. Finally, as Mr Moore said, it is certainly not this Government's intention to continue cutting programs to the point where it does real damage to the services which are being delivered.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .