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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1523 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

In 1994-95 the approach taken with the health budget was to front-end load it; in other words, to put in an extra $14.5m at the beginning of the year, not see any extra patients, and use business rules as well, and say, "Wow, we brought the budget in". They spent $14.5m more, did not see any extra patients, used business rules and, lo and behold, supposedly did not have a blow-out. Mr Speaker, spending more money for no extra patients is not something that should be crowed about. I think it is very important that those listening to this debate - they probably are somewhat bored by now, after listening to those opposite whinge on - realise that these problems that we are facing now have been around in the Assembly for a long time. That means that they have to be solved, Mr Speaker. It does not mean that we are saying that it is all right because everybody else has underspent in their capital works and everybody else has overrun in their health budget; but those opposite had, I think, about five years in government to fix it. So far we have had 15 months and, Mr Speaker, we have put this as a priority.

I now want to address Mr Wood's comments about the underspending in capital works. Mr Wood said that this is somehow a con trick. That is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, up to $2m has been set aside this year, Mr Speaker, for the early stages of design of those 35 projects that Mr De Domenico was talking about. We found $2m in this budget to make sure that all that early design work is in place so that we will be able to go to tender in June. Going to tender in June is something that has never happened before on that number of projects, and the total value of those projects, Mr Speaker, is $55m. I must admit that I am somewhat stunned at the view that bringing $2m into this year's budget that was not planned for, to make sure that we can go to tender at the end of the financial year, in June, to make sure that we will be in a position to award tenders the moment the money becomes available in the new financial year, is somehow not fast-tracking, Mr Speaker. I think that is fast-tracking in the most definite and most appropriate manner, and it is certainly in line with the recommendations of Mr Moore's committee. It means that from now on we will have projects that have gone through early design phases, and if any of them cannot go ahead, for whatever reason, we will have another one to slot in. That is what Mr Moore's committee has suggested.

I do not have to defend Mr Moore. I think Mr Moore's comments on the capital works projects were quite right. A situation where $14m-plus worth of projects slip in one year - as I said, it was $30m in 1993-94 and $13m in 1992-93 - is simply unacceptable. We have to have in place an approach that stops that happening. Mr Moore at least was honest enough to accept that the $14.2m worth of projects that slipped this year did not come about because the Government had somehow cancelled them, as those opposite said. He at least admitted that slippage in capital works programs is something that happens to all governments, but what we have to do is have other projects to put in their place. (Extension of time granted)

Mr Speaker, the projects that were subject to slippage this year were projects such as the North Watson infrastructure, the Holder High refurbishment and the Acton Peninsula. We have been through the list lots of times. A lot of that slippage was due quite definitely to decisions of committees of this Assembly or things that were outside the control of the Government. Mr Moore has accepted that, but his view is that we should have slotted in new projects. I agree with that. Those opposite have somehow suggested in this debate

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