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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1165 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

What, then, is wrong with the process that the Government has used? I come back to the point that it appears to be asserted that it is wrong because it is different.

Mr Berry: Shonky.

MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, I request that that interjection be withdrawn.

MR SPEAKER: Do you withdraw, Mr Berry?

Mr Berry: I do not think I should have to withdraw that. I just say that the process is shonky.

MR KAINE: I request, Mr Speaker, that that interjection be withdrawn.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, Mr Kaine has asked for a withdrawal.

Mr Berry: I do not impugn any member in this Assembly. I just say that it is a shonky process.

MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, I will demonstrate that it is not shonky.

Mr Berry: I think the standing orders make it clear that unless I have impugned somebody's character I do not have to withdraw it.

MR KAINE: If Mr Berry wishes to be so aggressive, then I will spend the next few minutes proving that it is not shonky; that is the whole point. It is not unlawful; it is quite appropriate; and, as I said, whether it is necessary is purely a matter of opinion. The Chief Minister and Treasurer is just as entitled to an opinion on that as Mr Berry is. What is it that the Opposition seeks to put forward in this report that says that it is wrong? They say, "Under the old system, you had a chance to interrogate the Government about whether what they did was right". That is partly true. Let us look at the procedure that has always been used in the past. In the past, the procedure has always been that the Treasurer has used the provisions of the Audit Act - quite appropriate, quite lawful - to inform the house long after the transactions have taken place that money has been spent in a way that was not intended when the Appropriation Bill was first brought down months before. I say that this would be months after the event because, in this particular case, under the Audit Act, we would not have seen that statement from the Chief Minister until about July. It would be tabled and it would be noted. I know of no case in this Assembly where that statement tabled by a Treasurer has been subjected to debate at the time.

Ms McRae says, "Yes, but when the Estimates Committee meets in about September, October, November, you can have a look at the Government's performance last financial year". Of course you can, but that could be six months after the transactions have taken place. Furthermore, a debate on the health blow-out, in the context of the normal annual Estimates Committee, is an examination of one small aspect of the total budget. I would submit that in no case has the blow-out in the health budget - and there has been one every year since self-government - or the debate in the Estimates Committee in any year been as explicit as was the case with this additional Appropriation Bill.

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