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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1552 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

To come in here and dishonestly say that they need it has to be exposed for what it is. Mrs Carnell does not need it. It is already there; and she should use the appropriate processes to use the money she already has, instead of coming in here and expecting members of this Assembly to hand over a blank cheque for $14.2m to somebody who has demonstrated in this debate how incompetent she is.

There is a possibility - I have not talked to my colleagues about this - that there could be a glimmer of support for this Bill if Mrs Carnell were to say, "I mucked it up last time. I would never put the community at risk again, so I am prepared to give it away if you give me the money". There is a bit of a chance there, a glimmer of hope. I am not saying that we could deliver, but there is a bit of a glimmer. But to give it to Mrs Carnell again? No way.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (3.55): Mr Speaker, listening to that speech by Mr Berry was like listening to a combination of George Orwell's 1984 and a Grimms fairytale. We can forget Castro, Mr Speaker. Maybe Wayne should try writing something like the great Soviet encyclopaedia written under Joseph Stalin. What a lot of gobbledegook we heard! This action by the Government is probably the most transparent, honest and open that any government could take. Indeed, in the overview of the Bill, in the third paragraph on page iv, it is stated:

Introduction of this Bill avoids the practice used in previous years of making artificial cash management arrangements to conceal an overrun in the Health and Community Care budget. A second appropriation by the Legislative Assembly is a more open and transparent mechanism for budget adjustments.

Quite clearly, it is. Mr Speaker, maybe Mr Berry should ponder - and so should Mr Whitecross - a not totally dissimilar sort of situation in the courts. It is an old rule in criminal trials that a person who is defending a matter can, in a trial, remain silent - do nothing. The person can make a statement from the dock, to which a jury will give such weight as it sees fit, and not be cross-examined. But the best form of evidence, the most open form, the most believable form, is to go in there and give evidence on oath and be cross-examined.

In relation to the process here, rather than just signing money around and doing some administrative procedures under section 49 of the Audit Act, what the Chief Minister has done has been open, honest and totally transparent. She has come back to this Assembly; the matter has gone to an estimates committee; and she has subjected herself and her officials to rigorous cross-examination in relation to this matter. How on earth can Mr Berry call that a blatant attempt to mislead the community? It is totally opposite to that. That is absolutely crazy. I cannot think of a more honest and open approach than the approach taken by the Chief Minister in this instance. Quite clearly, it is the most appropriate way to handle a situation such as this. Not only are Mr Berry and Mr Whitecross clutching at straws there; they are sadly mistaken. They are completely twisting the facts in relation to what has occurred.

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