Page 2472 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
She said:
We've really got to make sure that we continue to be focused on outcomes and that means that sometimes that might mean more money spent in a particular area.
More money, Madam Speaker. Again, on 8 April, Mrs Carnell was reported on 2CN as follows:
The Opposition's Health Spokesperson, Kate Carnell, claims the standard of health care in the ACT is suffering due to Government budget constraints.
What a contrary message on fiscal responsibility! It is totally contrary. As so many of them seem to be confused about the health budget, I would like to spend a little time commenting upon that. (Extension of time granted) The Opposition keep asserting that Health overspent by a figure, which I believe they have invented, of $10.6m.
Mr Kaine: It comes out of your own publications.
MS FOLLETT: It has not come out of the budget papers; it is a totally rubbery figure, and no more than you would expect from the people over there. Budget Paper No. 2 quite clearly shows, on page 34 and again on page 40, that the total health expenditure, that is, programs 26 and 27 combined, exceeded the original budget estimate by a total of $7.67m on the recurrent side. This is made up of $6.4m for hospitals and $1.2m for public and community health. On the capital side, there was actually an underexpenditure of $2.8m. Therefore, for both recurrent and capital combined, the expenditure above the original estimate was $4.8m. Try to ingrain that in your minds, please. Forget the other figure. You made it up.
As is clearly pointed out on page 40 of Budget Paper No. 2, the increases under the business rules resulted from legitimate causes. The legitimate causes, which would have caused the Liberals to stack the patients in the car park, included wage increases, changes in the number of private patients and changes in specific purpose funding from the Commonwealth. They deliberately fail to understand the health budget. It is a complex matter and, as I have said, they cannot count backwards from 900, so we know that it is beyond them. I am sorry that members of the Liberal Party did not see their way to making a better assessment than they have made. Unfortunately, in regard to education, the Opposition says that education expenditure blew out by $4m. Page 39 of Budget Paper No. 2 - - -
Mr Kaine: We have a different page.
Mr De Domenico: We must have got bodgie copies.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MS FOLLETT: They will not listen, Madam Speaker, even when you try to put them right. They are contrary. Page 39 of Budget Paper No. 2 says that government schooling expenditure was over by $3.2m; non-government schools expenditure was below the budget by $0.7m; and higher education and training expenditure was $0.165m below the budget. I ask members to try to come to terms with the real figures and to understand what is in the budget papers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .