Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1543 ..
MR WHITECROSS (continuing):
the central redundancy pool, and capital works. In her Government response
to the Estimates Committee report a matter of a week or so later, Mrs Carnell
announced that she had frozen $14.2m worth of capital works and that that was
where the money was coming from. This begs the question as to what the
Treasurer's Advance is going to be used for, if it is not going to be used to
plug the health budget. The Treasurer's Advance is to make budget adjustments
to cover unforeseen problems with the original appropriation. Moreover, it
begs the question why the Government did not use the central redundancy pool,
which we were told in the Estimates Committee was $7m.
During the Estimates Committee hearing, Mrs Carnell noted that on revenue collection they would be right, and now it is possible that Mrs Carnell has not used the Treasurer's Advance and has not used funds from the central redundancy pool because she will need them to supplement other budget items, because there are undisclosed blow-outs in other areas which we are going to learn about, maybe next week, maybe the week after, once this Bill is passed. Mrs Carnell has not been, and is still not being, open and transparent with members of the Assembly and with the Canberra community. Mrs Carnell has changed her story several times; she is the master of doublespeak. Mrs Carnell has said that this Appropriation Bill reinforces the Government's view that additional funding is not treated lightly. Budget adjustments have never been treated lightly, and I am at a loss to see why this process is an appropriate way to pursue and achieve administrative efficiencies. If and when Mrs Carnell and her Government really need a further appropriation, they can come back to the Assembly. The Assembly will then, hopefully, be in a position to assess such a Bill on its merits, with all the information to make an accountable and informed decision.
I must say, before addressing some of the issues surrounding this Bill, that rejection of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) does not represent a no-confidence motion in the Chief Minister. I am not suggesting for one moment a blockage of supply. Mrs Carnell supposedly does not need the $14.2m. Let the Independents be under no illusion: This is not about confidence in the Government. This is about upholding the sovereignty of the Assembly. This is about not giving the Government money which, by their own admission, they do not need.
I will take the Assembly back to September last year, when we sat here for an extraordinary amount of time scrutinising the Carnell Government's first budget. Remember Mrs Carnell's three-year budget strategy, which she and her colleagues launched with great fanfare? Remember all her platitudes about her Government under her stewardship setting real and achievable targets? Remember the real and achievable targets? In her budget speech Mrs Carnell said that they were "real, achievable bottom lines that we will live within". She went on to say that the three-year budget strategy "demonstrates that we can regain control over our expenditure in a responsible, measured approach". Well, Mrs Carnell, one year on, it is not looking too good, is it? We will see how it is going at the end of the financial year, but just at the moment it is not looking too good. You can hide behind that three-year budget story for a while, but sooner or later you are going to have to come out from behind the wall and be counted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .