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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1167 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

This strange assertion that it is somehow wrong because it is different is an absurdity. The committee is so unsure of itself that it brings forward no recommendations. I said before that I would come back to it. Its conclusions, so-called, are wishy-washy. I go to paragraph 2.32 of the committee's conclusions as to the process. They do not say that it is wrong; they simply say, "The committee remains to be convinced that it is necessary". So what? What responsibility does that impose on the Government or this Assembly? None whatsoever. In other words, the committee has copped out. It could not bring itself to say that it was unlawful, because it was not. It could not even bring itself to say that it was inappropriate; it just says, "The committee remains to be convinced that it is necessary". What a wimp; what a cop-out! It means nothing; it carries no weight with the Government; it places no obligation on either this house or the Government.

I can only say the same thing about its further conclusions on page 19 of the report, at paragraphs 3.26 and 3.27. They are general conclusions which do nothing but express an opinion. They place no obligations on the Government; they place no obligations on this Assembly; and they give no indication as to in what direction the committee would like the Government to go. If I were the Chief Minister I would read this with great interest and say, "Well, yes, it is a matter of opinion; it is interesting". I would go on and say, "But I am confident that I did the right thing by putting the matter before the Assembly now instead of leaving it for six to eight months to sneak it in under the door and hope that it will go by without notice".

Mr Berry: You know that that is not true.

MR KAINE: Mr Berry says that it is a shonky deal. I would submit that, if Mr Berry thinks this is shonky, then he will need to look very closely at the way he handled the health budget when he was Minister. Mr Speaker, I would submit to you that he was never submitted to the same intensity of questioning and interrogation as the Chief Minister has just been through on this issue in connection with the health budget. You can chuckle and laugh; but go back to the Hansard and it will prove that what I just said is right. You were never submitted to it and, when you were submitted to any sort of interrogation or questioning about it, it was six to eight months after the event. What could this Assembly or your Government do at that time, if the committee and the Assembly thought that what you did was wrong? The answer was nothing.

You have a choice to make, Mr Berry. The Appropriation Bill will come up for debate later, and you have to make up your mind whether you are going to support it or reject it. If you reject it, it will be the first time in the history of this Assembly that a money Bill has been rejected. Mr Berry may be seeking to make history and to be a prime mover in this, but he has yet to demonstrate that what Mrs Carnell is doing is inappropriate; he has yet to demonstrate that it is unnecessary; and he certainly has yet to demonstrate that he believes that it is unlawful. It was none of those things. It was most appropriate; it was quite lawful; and, in my view, it was the proper course for the Treasurer and Chief Minister to follow - to expose herself to questioning on the matter before the Assembly votes on it rather than six months afterwards.

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