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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1548 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Whitecross has a much better idea of the validity and origin of rumours than anyone on this side of the chamber has. The last rumour I can recall that had a large currency around the Assembly chamber happened in February this year. The rumour was that Rosemary Follett was on the skids and was about to be dumped. Mr Whitecross said, "No, no, no; that is not true. We are not trying to put the skids under Ms Follett. No, no, no, no, no". In fact, Ms Follett even accused me of having started the rumour. I am still waiting for the apology, by the way, but I was accused of having started the rumour.

Mr De Domenico: She would have loved you to be in the party room to vote for her; perhaps it would have been three all.

MR HUMPHRIES: I think I would have voted for her, too, frankly. Mr Speaker, I would not believe anything Mr Whitecross said in respect of rumours. I think Mr Whitecross has demonstrated that he is not to be believed when it comes to rumours. Overall, I think the Assembly is well served by this Appropriation Bill, and I urge members to support it as an indication that they want this practice of openness and accountability, instituted under this Government, to continue.

MR BERRY (3.40): What a pathetic defence from a weak Minister of a phoney process! This is one of the phoniest processes ever dragged before this Assembly by this stage-managed group opposite. This is the worst process I have ever seen dragged before this place. It has been said that some governments do things differently and that therefore there is a reason for this Government, the Liberals opposite, to deal with their health mismanagement in this way. On the basis of Mrs Carnell's proposals, I suppose that this is a more open and consultative way to deal with things. Of course, that theory of Mrs Carnell's clearly has been blown out of the water by the inquiry into the matter, and not one of these Ministers opposite has been able to demonstrate that Mrs Carnell needed has been proven, and with plenty of precedent, as has been proven, for Mrs Carnell to adopt the processes that have been adopted by governments before her and, indeed, even by her. To try to present this as some new blinding light on openness and consultativeness was, as has been said, an exercise in doublespeak. That has never been the case and it has never been able to be proved.

Mr Speaker, this Appropriation Bill is about extra money for a budget that already has the money in it. Mrs Carnell has demonstrated that the money is there by putting forward this piece of paper, which was tabled on 14 May under subsection 37(3) of the Audit Act, where she has put aside or frozen $14.2m that is already in the budget. It is not extra money that she requires. It is already in the budget. So why go on with this nonsense? Why go on with this deceit? The money is there.

Mr Humphries: How is it deceit to put it on the table?

MR BERRY: It is deceit, absolute deceit, and it is about a blatant attempt to mislead the community. An appropriation Bill is about appropriating extra funds for the Consolidated Fund, or the Territory Fund in this case, for the purposes of the Government. There are no extra funds required; so, given Mrs Carnell's incompetence in the health budget, why would you give her more money to play with? We would be regarded as gooses if we were to give somebody who had bungled so badly more

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