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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1181 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

argued this case consistently. Indeed, the former Government also acknowledged the validity of a supplementary estimates procedure for major changes to appropriations. It supported referring this issue to the Public Accounts Committee, which concluded in June 1993 that the process of supplementation needed to be more transparent to enable more informed debate by members, Mr Speaker.

Given that background, it is quite extraordinary that the majority of this committee should come down with a completely contrary view now. Mr Speaker, in June 1993 there was one idea; now there is a totally different one. To argue that a supplementary estimates process is not appropriate when there has been a major adjustment to an appropriation is completely at odds with the views expressed by those opposite in the past. It also flies in the face of logic, and it flies in the face of the fundamental principle that this Assembly, elected by the voters of the ACT, is the ultimate authority when it comes to taking money, in the form of taxes and charges, from the people of Canberra and spending it for the community's good.

This year, for the first time, the Government has gone to a second appropriation to cover a major adjustment to the health budget. I stress that it is not the first time that a major adjustment to the health budget has been made. Indeed, adjustments have been the rule rather than the exception. But this is the first time that a government has gone to a second appropriation. We believe that it is the appropriate course of action. It is consistent with the views we have expressed in the past, and it is consistent with the principle that this Assembly should approve a major adjustment to any appropriation.

Mr Speaker, the Government has given a firm undertaking that, notwithstanding the second appropriation, total expenditure will not exceed the total amount originally appropriated. Maybe I should stress that again because it appeared that Ms McRae did not quite understand that. As chair of the committee, if there were things she did not understand, she should have asked another question. The Government has given a firm undertaking, I repeat, Mr Speaker, that, notwithstanding the second appropriation, total expenditure will not exceed the total amount originally appropriated. In fact, Mr Speaker, I think it would be a good idea right now to table for this Assembly the authority which actually moves $14.2m from urban services and reduces the appropriation for urban services by $14.2m from capital works. If the Assembly is interested, I am very happy to do that.

We have gone to great lengths to explain openly and in great detail the need for a second appropriation. The Government accepts its responsibility in this matter. We accept criticism of the budget overrun - in fact, I made that very clear from the beginning of my speech - but it must also be seen in the context of a long legacy of budget overruns in the health portfolio. How in heaven's name could Mr Berry stand there and make the comments he did when he was the Minister who produced four budget overruns - four out of four? Every time he was Health Minister and brought down a budget he overran the budget. As well as that, he reduced bed numbers and he blew the waiting list by more than double. Yet he could stand there and try to be holier than thou.

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