Page 2203 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Liberals have always been very sensitive to criticism, too. Their failures as the Alliance Government forced the Labor Opposition, media and public to often uncover unsavoury truths about their style of government. Mr Kaine would remember that. The Liberals in government became very sensitive to criticism. And well should they have, because the truth always hurts. They have to live with their current leader. So sensitive to criticism were they, that their Ministers would look for scapegoats for their own mistakes. Mr Humphries knows a little bit about this. At the time of the infamous health budget blow-out, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kaine, exonerated Mr Humphries and passed the blame on to the bureaucrats. He stated that he would sack senior health bureaucrats if he found them to be derelict in their duty. Of course, many other things were discussed in the furore of that debate. But one thing Mr Kaine would not do was sack the Minister who failed.
This demonstrates the Liberals' reaction to public criticism - passing the buck and blaming those who are not publicly accountable. You do not like it, do you? After criticism of the budget blow-out, Mr Humphries described health accounting procedures in the hospital as a dog's breakfast. However, what did he do to solve the problem? He blamed others. Mr Humphries was so upset by the leaked documents and criticism that he stated in the Canberra Times on 24 April:
That leak has done a lot of damage to some people's reputations - - -
Mr Humphries: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is very edifying and very amusing; but it is not to the point of the matter of public importance, which is the ACT Labor Government's abnormal reaction to criticism, not ours.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I must uphold the point of order. Could we get back on to relevancy, please.
Mr Connolly: Can I make a submission on that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.
Mr Connolly: For probably four minutes of the 10 minutes or so for which she spoke, Mrs Carnell debated the merits of a methadone program. I ask you to show the latitude that has been shown so far in this debate; but if you are not prepared to do so we will, of course, accept your ruling. But Hansard will show the relevance from that side and from this side.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Connolly, I am aware that Mrs Carnell referred to the methadone program. I would not put a time of four minutes on it. I would not put any time on it. I am also aware that Mr Berry has spoken of past matters which are not relevant. I believe, however, that the contributions of both members who have spoken so far are about equal in terms of irrelevancy. That is why I am upholding Mr Humphries's point of order.
MR BERRY: One always has to determine a particular position by comparison with some sort of benchmark. I am establishing for consideration by this Assembly the benchmark that was created by the Alliance Government under the leadership of Trevor Kaine. Mr Deputy Speaker, after I have illustrated the performance that was put on by those who were formerly in office, you will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .