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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1496 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

appropriating an additional amount of money and the licence that it gives her to spend more than was originally appropriated to her in Appropriation Bill 1995-96. She has chosen to ignore those concerns; she has chosen to ignore the advice that she withdraw this Bill and use her existing authorities under the Audit Act to arrange her budget in the way that she wants.

Mr Berry: It was a stunt.

MR WHITECROSS: It was a stunt, Mr Berry. One of Mrs Carnell's most extraordinary remarks in her response was that the Assembly was somehow denying the principle of the primacy of the Assembly. I find this an extraordinary remark. Mrs Carnell was suggesting that a report with contrary views to hers somehow amounts to a suggestion that we do not endorse the primacy of the Assembly. Indeed we do, and that is why we do not like this Appropriation Bill. This Appropriation Bill says, "Give me the money. I promise not to spend it". So much for the primacy of the Assembly.

This Bill is giving the Assembly's power, the Assembly's authority, over to the Government; it is saying to the Assembly and to the people of Canberra, "Give us a little bit extra. We will keep it in our back pocket. We promise not to spend it". This is from the people who say, "Go to the bank and ask, `Can I have $30,000 for a new car?'. The bank manager says, `But you have $30,000 in your bank account; why not spend that on your new car?'. You say, `Well, I promise not to spend the $30,000 in the bank account; but can you lend me $30,000 anyway?' ". That is what she is asking us to do. "Trust me, Mr Bank Manager, trust me. Lend us the extra $30,000, but we promise not to spend the money in our bank account" is Mrs Carnell's approach. It is not a very persuasive argument.

Mr De Domenico: What page are you up to? Are you trying to find it?

MR WHITECROSS: I am just skipping a few bits. I do not want to bore you. What Mrs Carnell is talking about here is a major adjustment to the budget. Mrs Carnell advanced in her Government response a quite extraordinary notion in relation to a major adjustment to the budget Bills. Mrs Carnell advanced the notion that if a line in the appropriation has blown out, like Health has because of Mrs Carnell's mismanagement of the health budget, by $14.2m - - -

Mrs Carnell: Four out of four for Mr Berry; four budgets out of four.

MR WHITECROSS: You have set the record, Mrs Carnell; I would not be boasting. After blowing out the health budget Mrs Carnell says, "If it was an accident, we should have to come back and do an appropriation Bill; but, if we did it on purpose, then it would be okay to use section 49 of the Audit Act. If we did it on purpose, it would be okay to move money, because that is what it is for". In Mrs Carnell's words, "You are allowed to sneak around in the dead of night and move money from A to B if it is because you have changed your priorities". If, having told the Assembly one thing

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