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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1546 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

As with the Territory's budget, the Assembly must be confident when it is approving appropriations that the amount appropriated is required for additional spending. In this case, there will be no new spending, no new programs. Money has been taken from another area, capital works, to fund this health budget blow-out. This Bill is unnecessary because Mrs Carnell says that she does not need it. When Mrs Carnell needs a further appropriation, Mr Speaker, she can put it to the Assembly; but this Appropriation Bill and Mrs Carnell's dishonest handling of it must be rejected by the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (3.33): That was a breathless speech by Mr Whitecross. I think we have all been left physically exhausted by the energy and pace he put into that very important speech. But the speech was replete with contradictions and anomalies. I must say that the overwhelming impression I got, listening to Mr Whitecross make that speech, was that he seemed to have taken it as his duty to defend the practices of the previous Government, which never exposed the Government to these sorts of pressures. He believes that we should go back to a process whereby this sort of thing is done in the Chief Minister's office with the stroke of a pen on an instrument under section 49 of the Audit Act and not have to worry the Assembly with little details about these sorts of things.

Let me put this to Mr Whitecross: For the sake of this argument, I am prepared to concede the point he repeatedly made throughout his speech that the Bill is not necessary. Let us concede that point. Let us concede, at least for the purposes of this debate, that you do not need to have this sort of Bill. Let me ask Mr Whitecross in turn: What harm does it do to require those health officials who are part of the process of assessing and managing the health budget each year to front up to a special estimates committee to answer the sorts of incisive questions that I am sure people like you and those on the crossbenches would have to ask about the health budget? What harm does it do?

Mr Whitecross: It does not do any harm, and we could have done it anyway without a Bill. We did not need a Bill.

MR HUMPHRIES: Precisely; it does not do any harm at all. Mr Whitecross says that we could have done that anyway. True; but not until after the budget was brought down.

Mr Whitecross: No, we could have done it at any time we wanted to.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, generally speaking, estimates committees are convened following appropriation Bills.

Mr Whitecross: The Public Accounts Committee.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is possible that the Public Accounts Committee could do it; but it would not be open to the same membership that the Estimates Committee is open to, it would not be a process that is akin to the Estimates Committee. Also, it would not necessarily happen. There have been very few inquiries by bodies like the Public Accounts Committee into that kind of thing. Normally, the information is structured around the Appropriation Bill.

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