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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 779 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Auditor-General's report has pointed out something very important to this Government and to the whole Assembly: We have to revise this particular system of accounting within the health budget; but to conclude from that that we need to witch-hunt the Minister is a conclusion that I think we simply cannot draw. I would ask members again to reconsider whether they really think a censure motion is warranted, and, if they do, what the consequence will be for every other decision the Government takes based on inherited financial models.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (12.05): Mr Speaker, I will be fairly brief. There is much in what both Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries have said. Specifically addressing the issue of recklessly misleading in the censure motion, I think we do need to have a look at that. As Mr Humphries has said, just to reiterate, what was costed was based on a costing model which every other government, including the present Opposition, had used, and had used for a number of years.

If you look, Mr Speaker and members, at page 1 of the Auditor-General's report, how more open and honest and accountable could the Chief Minister have been than the actions which are described there which she took on 1 June 1995? It is hardly a case of someone recklessly misleading the house. I think those two points are terribly important, Mr Speaker - the costing model that was used, and had been used in the past, and the actions taken by the Chief Minister which led to this report coming before the house. I think that is very responsible indeed.

I find it somewhat incongruous, Mr Speaker, when I look at what the Opposition has put up. We heard Mr Connolly indicate, as Health Minister, that he intended saving about $4m, not $2m. We have heard this Opposition bragging about how they brought in a balanced budget. It might have been, Mr Speaker, on the books perhaps; but I think the debt this Government inherited is a fairly significant factor. When we look at what was in the kitty, which was zilch, zippo, nothing, when about five years beforehand we had about $160m, I think that is a fairly significant factor too, which probably makes the Opposition's artificial balanced budget on one occasion very artificial indeed.

There are a few other points which I think are relevant in this debate because it does involve health. I think the previous Government did increase expenditure in the health budget in one year at least, but no extra patients were treated. In the first six months of the financial year 1995-96, 1,000 more patients were treated at Woden Valley Hospital. I think the Health Minister can take a lot of credit for that. That is what hospitals are all about - treating people.

Mrs Carnell: Supposedly.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, supposedly. Really, Mr Speaker, I think we have to keep all this in perspective. I hark back to the points both Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries raised. I would like people on the crossbenches, especially, to have a little bit of a think about the costing method that was used, and also the very proper actions taken by this Chief Minister on 1 June.

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