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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1178 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

travelling on line. But we were then told that there were three separate areas from which this money could be drawn. Therefore, it may not end up all being actually spent on health. Money may or may not be taken from other areas. The budget may or may not come in with $14.2m extra. This is an extra appropriation Bill.

Mrs Carnell, you did not make it clear. You may read the Hansards and see that the committee was not left with a clear and unequivocal statement about where the extra money was coming from and whether, under persistent questioning, an extra $14.2m was going to be spent or not. What we were told was that anything between $1 and $14.2m of this extra appropriation may be spent.

Mrs Carnell: No, no, no; $14.2m will be spent on health.

MS McRAE: I like the way you rewrite history, Mrs Carnell. If you go back to the Hansards, if you go back to what the committee heard overall in the context of the entire budget, this addition of $14.2m may or may not be spent entirely on health because it may or may not be drawn from the three areas where there was money identified. We know what the Appropriation Bill itself said. What we are talking about is the detail that was presented to the committee, which made what seemed a straightforward process far more complex, and to not have all the curtailments on it that the Audit Act has.

The argument that it is a secretive process is a spurious and ridiculous argument. There is nothing to stop Mrs Carnell from making anything at all public. In fact, one would go out of one's way to say that, of the 17 of us, Mrs Carnell is best at making things public. If there is one skill that Mrs Carnell has, it is communicating with the public and offering information. So there is absolutely no argument to say that, because something is done under the Audit Act, suddenly it is secretive. It would be secretive only if Mrs Carnell chose not to tell. It was open to Mrs Carnell to tell the minute the Audit Act was used. I sincerely hope that the day the Audit Act is actually used for these transfers she will break with tradition so called and actually make it public. It is a spurious argument to mount for a completely new procedure. It is also, as Ms Tucker pointed out, a spurious argument to mount that, because we have in place a new Bill that is going to allow this procedure after we have passed the new Bill, let us go with the new procedure now because someone happens to like it. That is essentially what we were asked to look at.

I urge members to look at the detail of what was given to us as shown in the Hansard, not the simplistic interpretation of events that has been glossed over and offered to the Assembly. When we questioned, nothing was as clear as was made out. When we questioned, the detail did not come through in quite such a simplistic way. Yes, the Appropriation Bill says that it is for health; but no, it may not all be spent on health - it may or may not - but other money may be transferred from elsewhere. It may, therefore - this is the basis of my argument - add a further $14.2m to the total appropriation; but it may not, because money may be transferred from at least three other areas.

Mrs Carnell: That does not mean that it is not going to be spent on health.

MS McRAE: That does not mean that my argument is wrong, Mrs Carnell.

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