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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1177 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

Mrs Carnell's oft repeated interjection that it would be done in the dead of night and not scrutinised simply does not bear following through as a logical argument. There was nothing to stop Mrs Carnell coming in last week and saying, "I, as Treasurer, am about to use the Treasurer's Advance. I, as Treasurer, am about to move this money. Do you like it or don't you? Move against me if you do not". That was completely open to Mrs Carnell. They are trying to push us into the position of saying that that is inherently wrong and that this Government's position is inherently good. One can take whatever side one likes on that, but it does not remove the basic problem that this committee had and that the Assembly members must face.

From which area of the budget is this money being transferred? How much of it is being transferred? What effect is there on the redundancy pool, on the Treasurer's Advance and on public works as a result of having that money transferred? What effect does it have on the bottom line? What we are being asked to do, purely and simply, is to hand over $14.2m more to the health budget, maybe. We are not quite sure because when we asked in detail we were not told whether the money would actually be transferred from the three identified programs or whether the appropriated money would simply be spent on health and the three appropriated programs not touched.

Mrs Carnell: We did. We said that quite categorically.

MS McRAE: You have not said it categorically enough, Mrs Carnell, because when we went through the transcripts it was not clear. When you go to the Audit Act, the Audit Act makes it absolutely clear, fundamentally black and white clear, that if you want $7m more you move it from one area and you put it in another. This is simply saying that this is an appropriation Bill for $14.2m more, albeit for the health budget; but, it could be moved from three identified programs; but, it may not be used; but, it may have an effect on borrowing because, shock, horror - going back to the transcript - "We do not know our revenue; we do not know how we are travelling with our revenue at the moment. We do not know the overall impact of where we are travelling on the bottom line. We do not know how much we are going to borrow". In that context, we are being asked to deal - - -

Mrs Carnell: But this has nothing to do with borrowing.

MS McRAE: Mrs Carnell, you will get your turn.

Mrs Carnell: It has nothing to do with borrowing.

MS McRAE: You will get your turn. I am explaining to the Assembly the range of imponderables that were before the committee, that were explained to the committee in terms of trying to come to grips with where the budget is now, where the budget is as a whole, where the difficulties lie in terms of trying to understand where we are at with revenue and where we are at with expenditure in each of the different areas. What the committee was told categorically was that there was a problem with health. What the committee was not told categorically was whether there was or was not a problem in any other area. What we were told was that, inasmuch as they could tell, everybody else was

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