Page 3110 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other point that must be made is that this Assembly will be debating in a week or so - I will be introducing it tomorrow - a vast new Adoption Bill. It will have provision for access to information at a far greater level, which will require a counselling service and an information clearing house, funds for which were provided in the budget; that is nothing new. What that means, of course, is that the adoption area will be assuming vastly increased responsibilities as from the date the Assembly votes on that Bill. So, a review of its current staffing, firstly, is not indicated by the community group most affected - indeed, they say that that is simply wrong - and, secondly, is about to be overtaken by events when the whole range of responsibilities change.
The only other thing to say is that the role of an estimates committee to some extent is to look for efficiencies and savings in the way that public resources could be devoted better. I note that the only target, the only savings option, Mrs Carnell was able to find - she is constantly calling on me to spend more money in community services - is that we have too many staff in the adoption unit. That has been totally refuted by the relevant community organisation.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.17): I open my contribution to the debate by saying that my Mum and Dad, and I think all my family, would be very proud of me tonight because not one Liberal had anything good to say about me. I am sure that when I ring them and tell them about that they will be very happy. They will say, "You are doing good, son".
The issues raised by Mr Connolly in relation to the substantial parts of the report were entirely correctly put. The substantial recommendations of the report are recommendations that people can look at seriously in the context of the way they manage their respective programs within the budget process, and that is fair enough. But we have to look at the political side of it, because some serious accusations have been made, by stealth, I suspect, in some instances, which are planned to do political damage and, therefore, demand a political response. Mrs Carnell's attitude to the entire estimates process can be found in the words she used - "exposed for making a mistake". There is an obvious political connotation there. It is a highly emotive political statement about making a mistake.
Mr De Domenico: What are you quoting from?
MR BERRY: If you had been listening to the debate instead of dozing off, listening to your comrades instead of dozing off into your dizzy land, you would have heard it.
Mrs Carnell: Where did it come from?
MR BERRY: Read the transcript tomorrow. You said it. I should also add, Madam Speaker, that this is a classic example of whether you can trust Liberals or not. This comes from page 475 of the transcript and is in relation to some figures I put before the Assembly. Some numbers were transposed and it was inaccurate; there is no question about that. The question that was asked was a bit off - a lot off; it came from a Liberal. Mrs Carnell says, as recorded on page 475:
What I am saying is that the figures are the wrong way around. Was the bit of paper that I tabled - that I have with me - that was given to the Board of Health for the figures at July 1991 - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .