Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1038 ..

Mr Speaker, having heard Mrs Carnell's defence of the matter, I am wondering whether the fact that Treasury has been downgraded has something to do with the fact that they tried to tell her how to do it the right way. Mr Woods got his, did he not? He is no longer in charge of a department. He is just another part. We do not know whether it is a program or an administrative unit or what, or perhaps a policy envelope or the corner of an envelope in the Chief Minister's Department. Was it because Treasury tried to tell you how to do this the proper way? That is my question. You got pretty sick of getting good advice and decided to proceed with your own entirely shonky arrangements.

I think that Mrs Carnell has a great deal to learn if she is going to persist in saying, as she did, “It does not matter where the money is”. Those were her precise words. This was from the Treasurer. Mrs Carnell, it does matter where the money is, and it does matter how much money is going to each program. It matters to me. It matters to every member of the Assembly, apparently, except you. Mr Speaker, what Mrs Carnell has done is indefensible. If she does not take this warning seriously, I think she will be very sorry in time to come. The information that we have been presented with is totally inadequate. Believe me when I say that. I will never again tolerate this kind of a document.

Mr Speaker, it is, I think, of great regret that the Assembly has taken this gigantic backward step in the matter of scrutiny of the Government's financial programs. This is $658m. I think this Assembly is entitled to be able to ask intelligent questions on how that money is broken up. Indeed, that has always been what has occurred in the past. Finally, Mr Speaker, I think that in her own comments Mrs Carnell has been extremely confusing as to exactly what this $658m represents. She said on the one hand that it represents a continuation of the previous Government's budget. That is what I would have expected it to represent. Then she kind of qualified that statement by some vague waffle about broadening the parameters of it all to reflect the current Government's policies.

Mrs Carnell: Is that not what you would expect too?

MS FOLLETT: No, it is not what I would expect to occur, Mr Speaker. A supply Bill, as far as I am concerned, continues existing policy. There is no new policy in it. I would have expected the Supply Bill to be presented in the same format and with the same amounts as the previous budget. That is what I would have expected. Of course, because of the way it has been presented, there is no way that I can be certain of that. Because the Schedule, which is the subject of this amendment, in effect replaces the whole Bill, there is no way that we can work out exactly what has occurred.

Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to one item in this Schedule. It is Division 40, Chief Minister's Department. In the Bill as presented by Mrs Carnell, the amount appropriated is $1.8m-odd. In the Schedule which is now the amendment, the amount appropriated is $75.19m. That is a bit of a difference. There is not a word of explanation of how that occurred or how that is broken up. Mr Speaker, I find that a quite extraordinary state of affairs. I repeat, and I expect to be taken seriously, that it is not

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .