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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1556 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

Mrs Carnell herself constantly urges us to talk up the economy. Yet, when she had an opportunity to beef up the economy by making sure that this $14.2m was reserved for public works projects, that opportunity was lost. The money was not taken from the two other areas that were identified during the estimates committee process. No reason has been given for that. What we are left with is a great big question mark, Mr Speaker, and the question mark is: Why was it not taken from those two areas? Does it mean that, suddenly, the central redundancy pool is actually being used? We do not know, Mr Speaker. Does it mean that the Treasurer's Advance is being used for other areas? We do not know, Mr Speaker.

We have been left with more loose ends from this process than we would have ever had, had the Chief Minister simply done what she did at the beginning of the Assembly session last week - come in with her Treasurer's Advance, put it on the table, as she did, and perhaps move the motion: That the Assembly takes note of this transfer. We could have debated the issue there and then. We would have known exactly where the money was coming from. We would not have been taken around in these huge circles in regard to a surplus in redundancy pools or the Treasurer's Advance, the ifs, the buts and the maybes. We would have been under no illusion that there was an extra $14.2m put into the system. There would not have had to be a warrant to freeze the expenditure of $14.2m and we would not have wasted a great deal of time. If the Chief Minister and the Government wanted this process to be open, it was completely open for them to do that. This is an unnecessary, extravagant process that solves not one problem, but creates at least three more.

MR MOORE (4.09): Mr Speaker, today I have spent quite some time listening to arguments, particularly those put by the Opposition. For me, those arguments seem to be that the Government could have done a whole series of things. The fact is that the Government decided, instead of the "could haves", to put up a second Appropriation Bill. By and large, Mr Speaker, if a government wishes to operate in that particular way or if it wants to operate in the way in which the previous Government operated, I do not have any particular problem with that. In fact, on quite a number of issues, it has been my approach to allow a government to work in the way that particular government likes to work. For example, with reference to ACTEW, it was the Labor Government's preference that ACTEW be part of a government body and run in that way. It was this Government's preference that ACTEW be a corporatised body and run in that way. Mr Speaker, in either case, I do not have a huge difficulty with the way they operate, provided that the outcome is the same.

In this case, Mr Speaker - I am going to bring us back to the Appropriation Bill, which is before us - the issue is: Where was the Government going to get the extra money to fill in a blow-out? What were the problems associated with that? How could they best be dealt with by the Assembly as a whole? I think the method used in this case is a quite sensible method - introducing a second Appropriation Bill. I have listened to quite a number of the arguments put by Labor as to why this was unnecessary; but I do not think that that in itself is an argument that will sustain a reason to vote against this legislation.

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