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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1881 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Berry published these figures anywhere. The basis for Mr Humphries's claim, repeated by Mrs Carnell, was an internal working document - a document that is circulated within the hospital, telling people in the hospital what is going on in the hospital. They have not produced any evidence that Mr Berry sought it, any evidence that he relied on it in this house, or any evidence that he published it in this house.

This is the basis of their claim that Mr Berry misled them. In fact, Mr Humphries's only claim that Mr Berry misled this house was that Mr Berry, yesterday and in press releases in the last couple of weeks, relied on Mrs Carnell's published figures to make a point about the performance of the health system - something that Mr Berry was perfectly entitled to do. Mrs Carnell published the figures. She has to take responsibility for the accuracy of the figures she published. I will have more to say about that in a minute. That is the only time that Mr Berry has done it. There is no evidence that in Mr Berry's period as Health Minister he knew of the figures, that he published the figures, or that he relied on the figures. So much for Mr Humphries's claim about misleading the house.

In order to bolster his paper-thin argument - he had no evidence of any of the basic things required in order to prove a misleading - Mr Humphries had to pull together a couple of other desperate arguments. What were they? One of them was, "You set the standard" - it might be a tissue-thin case; it might be as weak as water - "so we are going to abide by it". He brought up the VMO debate. Mr Speaker, the differences between the VMO censure motion and this one are manifest to anybody. For a start, Mrs Carnell not only made claims in this place about the savings she was going to get from the VMO deal but also made claims in her budget papers about it and admitted that the budget papers were not based on the model which she said was wrong. Mr Speaker, there is no comparison between Mrs Carnell making claims about savings, not relying totally on the model but relying also on other figures prepared for the budget in other ways, and Mr Berry relying on Mrs Carnell's published figures. So, the VMO argument is a dead argument. There is nothing there. It is completely without substance.

Mr Humphries had another argument to bolster his tissue-thin case here. It was that there is nothing wrong with tabling figures which are misleading; it is only wrong to rely on them. So, Mrs Carnell can come into this place, month after month, and publish figures which are wrong, and that is okay, according to Mr Humphries; but, if Mr Berry dares to read them and says that there is something wrong here and makes a statement based on the figures, that is misleading, according to Mr Humphries. So, it is okay to publish the misleading figures; but, if you want to quote them, if you want to rely on them, suddenly you have engaged in some hideous crime, according to Mr Humphries. Mr Speaker, that is how tissue-thin and how pathetic the Government's case is.

So, Mr Speaker, why have I moved this amendment? I have moved this amendment because the real scandal here, and the real issue for which we ought to be getting an explanation in this place, is: Why did Mrs Carnell publish these figures, month after month, when they were misleading? That is the real issue. Why did her department compile these figures, month after month, for her to publish, when they were misleading?

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