Page 1796 - Week 06 - Thursday, 19 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This year, for a two-month requirement, they are given almost the same amount; they are given close to $43m. What is contained in that? What is there going on in Housing and Community Services that would require some sort of up-front payment that is a one-off and that is going to distort even the linear expenditure of money throughout the course of the year? Why does the department need almost as much this year as it was given last year in a supply period that was two-and-a-half times as long? It raises some very interesting questions, and perhaps the Chief Minister can explain why this is so.
You also have to look at interesting figures such as those for the Department of Health. We are asked to provide nearly $90m for - let us be generous - a three-month supply period. If that is the amount for the three-month supply period, four times that is $360m for Health for the year. Last year it was only approximately $270m. So are we expecting a massive increase in health expenditure again this year? Is it going to be out of control again? Is the Government already predicting that health expenditure is going to be out of control and making massive provisions that do not appear, on the face of it, to be justified? We can go through the Bill and look at item after item, but there is so little information provided with supply Bills. We are expected to take it on faith that the Government really needs this much money and we either accept it or reject it. Conventionally, oppositions do not reject supply Bills, and we are not going to reject this one; but it does raise some interesting questions.
The only other point that I want to deal with, Madam Speaker, is the special provision this year in connection with the establishment of an ACT Health special purpose funds trust fund. In last year's budget there was a thing called a health transitional operations trust fund. One would assume that it was just that - it was a transitional fund to move from the old system of accounting in Health to the new. Having analysed last year's health budget, we built into it all of the things that Health had previously said were uncontrollable. Their budget, in fact, was increased by approximately $30m so that we made provision for all of those things about which, every time we questioned their figures, Health told us, "These things are outside our control". We said, "Make an estimate and we will put them in the budget. The provision will then be there and there will be no excuse for you overexpending your budget". That did not stop them overexpending by an estimated $9m, however.
But outside of that there were moneys that I understood at the time were being put into a transitional operation. They were moneys from donations and grants that had not been spent. I thought, "Fair enough. Put them in a transitional trust fund, and when they are spent the trust fund will go out of existence". But now we are making this transitional trust fund a permanent trust fund. There are two elements to that. One is grants. Nowhere else in budget are grants treated specially. They go into Consolidated Revenue. They are spent for the purpose for which the grants are made by the Commonwealth. This fund was established last year, and part of the money in there was from radiation oncology payments received from the Commonwealth. Even then the transition fund had a Commonwealth grant in it. But in other programs in the budget operated by other agencies the grants go into Consolidated Revenue. People managing the books know what they have the money for and they spend it for that purpose. They do not have to set
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .