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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1522 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

I do not think anybody could really believe, even though they said it a lot in this debate, that an estimates committee is somehow not accountable, or that using an estimates committee is somehow hiding the issues or trying to be secretive. A debate on the floor of the Assembly does not allow the sort of questioning that can occur in a committee process, particularly an estimates committee process. An estimates committee process is, I suggest, the most accountable process that this Assembly has. Members of the Assembly can ask questions of the Minister responsible, and of anybody else they choose to call, in a public forum for as long as they choose to ask them. How much more accountable can you be than that? We believe that that is an appropriate approach, and it is one that we will continue to follow because we believe that it is the right way to go.

Mr Whitecross also made some comments about the Audit Act 1989 being passed by this Assembly. Mr Whitecross should realise that that was a Commonwealth ordinance prior to self-government. Although that is not central to this debate, Mr Speaker, I think it is important to realise that that Act was automatically taken on board at self-government. Those opposite who were there in those days indicated in that First Assembly that they were going to rewrite the Audit Act to make it more appropriate for the ACT. That has never happened until now, of course. That is just a tiny history lesson but one that is very relevant.

Mr Speaker, a lot has been said in this debate about capital works. This Government totally supports Mr Moore's committee, which suggests that we desperately need to change the way we have approached capital works; but, Mr Speaker, the underspending in total capital works has not been unique to this Government. It was interesting to hear Ms Follett make the comment - shock, horror! - that the Government has underspent in total capital works. Just for interest, in 1992-93 the underspend in total capital works was $13m. That same year the overrun in Health was $12m. In 1992-93 we had an underspend in total capital works of $13m and an overspend in Health of $12m. That was quite a number of years ago now, Mr Speaker; but I suspect that that might even have included business rules - those wonderful things that allowed you to fudge the amount of money you were really spending on health. In 1992-93, though, Mr Speaker, the total capital underexpenditure - wait for this - was $30m.

Mr De Domenico: Under Labor?

MRS CARNELL: Under Labor, in 1992-93.

Mr De Domenico: The hypocrites who came in here and said what they said.

MRS CARNELL: The same people who came in and said what they said. After significant use of business rules we still got a budget overrun in Health of some $4.4m; but guess what, Mr Speaker? Did we see any new clients? Did we have any more patients for that sort of money? What did we have, Mr Speaker? We had 200 fewer beds and we had a waiting list that went up from, I think, about 1,789 to very close to 4,500, Mr Speaker.

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