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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1497 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

about what you were going to spend the money on, you decide that you want to spend it on something else, then it is a legitimate use of section 49 of the Audit Act to move it under those circumstances; but, if you have just mismanaged your budget and you need a bit more money, then you should have to come back to the Assembly. What a nonsense!

So much for the primacy of the Assembly. That is the argument that Mrs Carnell ran. If you have changed priorities, if your priorities are now different to the ones that you have told this Assembly, then you can use section 49 of the Audit Act and move the money around in the dead of night; but, if you have just stuffed up, like Mrs Carnell has done with her health budget, then you should have to come back to the Assembly. This shows how muddle-headed Mrs Carnell's thinking is. This shows how confused Mrs Carnell is. The issue here is not process; the issue is openness. Section 49 of the Audit Act and other sections of the Audit Act - - -

Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is the pot calling the kettle black permissible in this place?

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mrs Carnell has confused process with principle. Mrs Carnell, the fact is that section 49 of the Audit Act and other provisions of the Audit Act are always legitimate; they are powers that have been given to you by this parliament; they are powers that this parliament says that you have the right to use. It is not the use of those powers which the parliament has given you that is wrong; the issue is how open you are. The issue of principle is what you tell us. If you tell us what is going on, then the Assembly should say that we are satisfied with that. If you tell us what is going on, then perhaps we will want a select committee or perhaps we will want the Public Accounts Committee to have a look at it and ask some questions; but that is the legitimate course. The existence of a Bill adds not one jot to the openness of this process. It is, if anything, a diversion and a distraction from the reality of this process, which is that Mrs Carnell has mismanaged her health budget and has cancelled $14.2m worth of capital works to pay for it.

This brings me to another issue about Mrs Carnell's so-called openness in relation to this matter. We have had Mrs Carnell saying all through this Appropriation Bill process, "I am being open here". Every time that we ask Mrs Carnell we get a different story about how this $14.2m is going to be paid for. Trying to get a clear answer from Mrs Carnell on what is going on and where the money is coming from for this has been like extracting teeth. Her latest version is that she has cancelled $14.2m worth of capital works to pay for it. That is the latest version of her story, but before that we had the Treasurer's Advance - - -

Mrs Carnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like Mr Whitecross to sit down while I take the point of order. I would like Mr Whitecross to clarify where I ever said that we had cancelled $14.2m worth of capital works.

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