Page 3102 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It seems that those appearing before the committee had little or no idea of how much money the ACT would have to contribute, of a definite timetable for installing the MRI unit or, for that matter, of the extent of usage that would justify the purchase and the recurrent costs that would be obviously picked up by the ACT ratepayer. It is this sort of decision which makes the people of Canberra particularly concerned about the accountability of ACT Health. It is very sensible for the Estimates Committee to comment about such a situation. That is what the Estimates Committee is for - to look at what money has been made available for projects that have been announced, whether the money that has been made available is appropriate, and so on. That is not a political statement, just the reason the Estimates Committee exists.
The Minister's tirade against the Estimates Committee report and his claims in the Canberra Times that the Estimates Committee became politicised are fatuous, especially when taken against his own performance. (Extension of time granted) His politicisation of the methadone issue is now infamous. The committee recommended that Mr Berry look at the requirements of the Drugs of Dependence Act because, as it stands, it looks as though his own preferred option put to the Estimates Committee does not meet legal requirements. It may mean that additional staff with appropriate qualifications will need to be employed, or it may mean that the Act needs to be amended. It all depends on the interpretation of the words "personally supervised" in section 80 of the Act. This recommendation is straightforward and to the point. There is nothing political about it. If the Minister does not like it because he failed to consider something when he put forward his own proposal, then that really is not the Estimates Committee's fault. It is just that the Minister has been exposed for making a mistake. This is the real reason, I believe, that he has attacked the committee.
The Government has also dithered around trying to find a justification for the provision of $100,000 for child-care services for ACT government employees. I could understand the Government making these contributions if ACT government employees were to receive child-care at lower rates; but, instead, child-care services are to be managed by Southside Community Services. Those child-care places will be provided at normal commercial rates. One must ask whether the ACT Government should be putting $100,000 into a service such as this when it would appear that ACT government employees are not getting anything for that $100,000. I think it was appropriate that the Estimates Committee should ask whether ACT ratepayers were getting value for money and whether they were getting anything for their money.
Under ACT Health business rules, the only justification for wage and salary supplementation - as Mr Berry would well know - is in the event of changes to awards by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Mr Berry would be acutely aware of this, yet the Government has been providing - as we found out in the Estimates Committee - supplementation to cover the increased costs of visiting medical officers. VMO contracts, as Mr Berry knows, are a matter between ACT Health and the visiting medical officers and have nothing whatsoever to do with national wage decisions. Since VMOs are employed on a contract basis, it is quite clear that the ACT Government have been breaking their own business rules by allowing wage and salary supplementations for VMOs. Again, when the point was raised in the Estimates Committee, there was no satisfactory answer. This was another prime example of the unresponsive, dithering answers that certain Ministers have become famous for.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .