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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1168 ..

MR BERRY (11.22): In 1995, Mr Speaker, an Appropriation Bill was put before this chamber which set out to appropriate $303m for the Department of Health and Community Care and, in the interests of restoring the proper historical perspective, Labor opposed that. Let us make sure that we get history in its right context, Mr Kaine. Preceding that Bill, a statement of expenditure pursuant to subsection 47(2) of the Audit Act was placed before this Assembly by - yes, you guessed it - Mrs Carnell. That is the process which is criticised in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1995-96 document, where, in the overview, it says:

Introduction of this Bill avoids the practice used in previous years of making artificial cash management arrangements to conceal an overrun in the Health and Community Care Budget.

I say that that language is shonky because Mrs Carnell herself used the lawful processes of the Audit Act prior - - -

Mrs Carnell: We did not say that it was not lawful. We said that it was not - - -

MR BERRY: She used the appropriate and lawful processes of the Audit Act to bring it before this chamber. Moreover, Mr Speaker, it was open to this Assembly when that was brought before this chamber to refer it to an appropriate committee, or to establish a new committee to deal with the issue if the Assembly so desired. Indeed, Mr Speaker, these matters would be drawn to the attention of the subsequent estimates committees, as is usually the case. I have to say, as a member of many of those estimates committees, that I find it quite offensive for these sorts of political statements to be made in a Government document in relation to an appropriation Bill. You cannot say:

Introduction of this Bill avoids the practice used in previous years of making artificial cash management arrangements to conceal an overrun in the Health and Community Care Budget.

It is a lie. It is an outright lie. History proves that because on many occasions documents have been brought before this chamber pursuant to the Audit Act and they have been dealt with by this chamber. So, Mr Speaker, there is no doubting the shonky business behind this whole approach.

It was very interesting to listen to Mr Kaine, in his response to the report, defending his dissenting opinion. It was notable throughout that response that at no time did Mr Kaine defend Mrs Carnell's management of her health budget, and neither should he, because that is what is behind this entire matter. Quite clearly, Mrs Carnell's management of the health budget has been found wanting. This Assembly has censured Mrs Carnell over her management of the health budget, and rightly so. Indeed, it has censured her for recklessly misleading this place, Mr Speaker. We have a very clear situation; the Health Minister has been found wanting, and this inquiry finds her wanting again. The facts are that Mrs Carnell decided on a particular budget of around $303m for the Department of Health and Community Care. She told this committee of inquiry that she had settled on a separation rate of around 55,000. Those estimates subsequently changed to around 58,000.

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