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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1500 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.53): Mr Speaker, I had to pinch myself during the beginning of this debate to - - -

Mr De Domenico: To remain awake.

MR HUMPHRIES: Not just to remain awake, but to get myself to believe that I was not dreaming about this particular issue. The Assembly is being confronted with an opportunity to scrutinise the Government's health program more comprehensively and earlier than has hitherto been the case; and, if Mr Whitecross's view is the view of the Assembly, the opportunity is being knocked back. It seems to be being knocked back.

Mr Whitecross said in the course of the debate that the Government says that it believes in some things but does not actually do them. When Mrs Carnell was in opposition she said very clearly that she thought the tactic of the Follett Government of transferring money between appropriations in the dead of night, so to speak, was not an appropriate and transparent way of dealing with problems in particular areas of the government budget. She criticised that consistently and continuously while Ms Follett was Chief Minister and Treasurer. Far from not doing what she says she believes in, Mrs Carnell has actually reversed that practice on coming to the treasury bench. She has now said, "No more; we are not doing this anymore. We are not having these sleight of hand movements of moneys around in this way, particularly in respect of a budget as sensitive as the health budget. We are going to take that budget, and if it runs over like this we are going to seek an extra appropriation from the Assembly. In doing so, we are going to expose ourselves, the Government, to a higher degree of scrutiny than was hitherto the case".

Mr Berry: Oh, rubbish!

MR HUMPHRIES: I will take up the interjection of Mr Berry that it is rubbish that there is a higher degree of scrutiny involved. It is true that there is scrutiny, both with a yearly appropriation Bill and with a Bill of the kind that Mrs Carnell has brought to this house. It is true that there is scrutiny of both of those Bills. It is true that both of those Bills generate estimates committees and those committees have the chance to ask Ministers questions. The difference between this process and that which the governments in the past have brought forward is that the process that was used in the past was tied in with the rest of the Estimates Committee work - a committee that looked at Urban Services, Education, Health, Attorney-General's and all the other components of government. Health was just one of those many issues within that, and members of the Estimates Committee were focused on a number of other issues at the same time.

I think it is quite understandable that that process does not put the focus onto the continuing problem with management of health budgets that this Territory and this Assembly particularly have to grapple with. It is an important issue. Members obviously can make jokes, can make snoring sounds and can pretend that it is all very funny, but the fact is that we have brought down six or seven budgets in this place over the last few years since self-government and we still have not solved the problem of health management.

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