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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1501 ..

Mr Berry: Labor solved it.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, Labor did not solve it. Oh dear, no! The man who is saying this is the man who brought down four budgets that blew out. What is more, it was all four that he brought down; four out of four. For goodness sake, how much credibility does he think he has on this question? He has absolutely none.

Going back to the question of scrutiny, it is true that in the July or September Estimates Committee we can have consideration within the broad framework of the health budget. We can have questions asked of the Minister for Health on the health budget. But this process is separate and freestanding and enables particular focus and debate in this place on the health budget and its problems. That is simply not possible in the same way as part of a global debate about the whole of the Appropriation Bill because, as in previous years, there will be a distraction, to use Mr Whitecross's words, on other issues. To give you an example, three years ago the health budget blew out, but the debate in the Estimates Committee and on the floor of this place was not about health; it was about education; it was about the sacking of 80 teachers. That was the absorbing debate on the floor of the Assembly. Health got very little time in here and no attention in the media. That is a distraction. This is the opposite of a distraction; it is the focusing on the issue in a way that previous governments have not had the courage to do.

It absolutely stuns me that we can have people coming forward in this place, sensitive to the fact that they did not expose themselves to this kind of scrutiny, and now saying that Mrs Carnell has not taken seriously her accountability to the Assembly. What has she done if not taken seriously her accountability to the Assembly? She has exposed herself to several days of debate in this place - debate which, I might say, has focused almost exclusively on the process, not on the fact of the problems within the health system. Those members opposite are obsessed with the process of bringing this forward.

Ms McRae: Because we know what the problem is; it is the person in charge, for heaven's sake.

MR HUMPHRIES: They are focused on the process. In response to Ms McRae, the person in charge has made a great deal of difference in this respect. The person in charge has resulted in most health budgets since self-government being blown out. Do you ever notice, Ms McRae, that most health budgets are blown out? The health budgets have all blown out, including from that man sitting on your right, Mr Berry, four times. You tell me that personnel matters. I tell you to have a look at the history.

The fact is that, if the Assembly rejects this process of using this mechanism to scrutinise the Minister for Health on these issues, it throws away an opportunity which is not available in the same way in the estimates committee process which comes later in the year. You want to somehow reject an opportunity for these things to be put on the table earlier in the year. This will always happen earlier in the year. If it happens ever again, it will happen at about this time of year. The budget is not brought down until, at least, June. If you want to reject the opportunity to focus on this issue at an appropriate time, then be it on your own heads. But, if you do so, you do so in a way which I think is most discreditable to the Assembly. The Assembly has an opportunity here to - - -

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