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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1163 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

but we were not given clear and unequivocal information as to exactly where that money would come from and what the effect would be on other line areas. That is not how the Commonwealth's appropriation Bills work, and we found it a bit irrelevant to be using that as an example.

It is a new procedure that the Chief Minister has chosen and, as such, should be questioned very closely. That is why we left it as a conclusion - because it does need additional scrutiny, additional debate and a clear-headed approach from this Assembly about exactly what we are getting into. The committee remained anxious, and the fact that two members chose to offer a different opinion does not remove those concerns. I think it further highlights the fact that there are concerns and capacities to interpret the information differently and, therefore, a failure on the part of the Government to clearly explain.

How can the Assembly and the community be assured that Appropriation Bill (No. 2) will not result in the expenditure of a further $14.2m? We cannot be. This is the clear challenge we are giving to the Chief Minister and her Government. In not formulating a recommendation against the Bill, this is the challenge we are now posing. We are saying - and I hope that Mrs Carnell is listening - "Convince us, convince everyone in the Assembly and everyone in the ACT, that, by passing this Appropriation Bill, we are not just writing out a cheque for $14.2m more; that there is some clear, logical and unassailably good reason why we should do it this way, rather than stick to the ways that have been tested, that have been tried and that have disciplines on them which exist currently under the Audit Act".

Mrs Carnell and her Government have every right to try to establish themselves as a team wanting to be politically different from their predecessor. Mind you, they do not have to try very hard; they are exceptionally different. But that does not mean that they should try to redefine, without any public consultation or discussion, what the responsibilities of the Executive and the Assembly are. The Estimates Committee and the Assembly do share the Chief Minister's displeasure at seeing an overrun in the health budget, but the Assembly cannot run the Health and Community Care Department for the Chief Minister. When the Government was formed, we handed over that responsibility, and we handed it over in good faith.

We have heard a lot about managers going on contract and losing their jobs if they do not deliver. We have not, however, heard too much from Mrs Carnell about Ministers resigning if they do not deliver on their responsibilities. Close examination of the health budget revealed serious structural problems. I refer you to conclusions 5 and 6 of the report. These structural problems were evident from their inception. My colleague Mr Berry, I am sure, will discuss this in much greater detail. Suffice it to say that the weaknesses were not dealt with as soon as they emerged. The Assembly, whilst it is able to scrutinise ministerial activity closely, cannot and, what is more, should not be expected to make day-to-day running decisions about the departments that Ministers are responsible for. Ministers' responsibilities are clearly defined, and they include keeping a close eye on their budgets.

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