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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3695 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

this Government was actually claiming credit for $400,000 which was from the Commonwealth. In this year's budget speech the 7 per cent increase for 1995-96 was also quoted. Unfortunately, the Government once again took all the credit. Anyway, the dollar figure of that 7 per cent has suddenly shot up to $1m. Since that time the claims of record expenditure keep getting grander.

Mr Speaker, the first press release on the budget quoted mental health expenditure as being more than $14m. To refer to the punters' guide to the budget, which is, after all, where most citizens will go for information, the increase by the Government for mental health is $295,000. We accept that there is a recent addition of $50,000, which came, incidentally, the day after I first threatened a no-confidence motion. However, a few weeks later $14m had jumped to $16m. Yesterday, in the statement on mental health, it was more than $16m. We are also being told that mental health expenditure by this Government has increased by $1.3m since it came to office. How the average citizen or a person interested in following this matter and participating in open government could arrive at $1.3m from the $400,000 increase to the mental health budget announced in Your Money at Work in 1995-96, added to $295,000 in the latest budget, plus the $50,000, if you like, is a mystery.

Where do the numbers come from? I refer members to the Walter and Turnbull report which was provided to the Estimates Committee. Table 1 of this report shows that the 1995-96 expenditure on mental health services was $14.618m. The 1996-97 figure is $15.903m. This explains where the $16m Mrs Carnell has been using comes from. But there is a paragraph under that table which contains, basically, a disclaimer from these consultants that none of these figures have been subjected to a detailed audit and are based only on information provided by the department. One wonders why the department cannot add up its own figures. If mental health is such a priority, what has been going on in this businesslike Government, if you do not know how much money you have spent? Most businesses do know how much money they have spent; they do not need to employ at the last minute an outside consultant who has to put in disclaimers because the time available was not adequate.

In addition to this general disclaimer, the consultants also wrote that the 1995-96 figures for Canberra Hospital were obtained from the hospital's general ledger; the 1996-97 figures were obtained from the purchase agreements; and the 1995-96 figure does not include any overhead allocation. The finance area of the Canberra Hospital estimates the amount of overhead allocation to be in the vicinity of $2m. If that is the case, that brings the 1995-96 figure up to $16.618m, which is actually more than the $15.9m in the 1996-97 figures. Who knows what the real story is? Maybe you will explain it, Mrs Carnell. Maybe you will actually sort it out. It should have happened.

In the Estimates Committee, I asked for a very detailed breakdown. We did not receive it. What we received after the estimates process pretty well was the Walter and Turnbull report. What I am saying here is that you may well be able to explain all these different claims that you have made, but you have to at least acknowledge the confusion that is put in the minds of the community. A lot of members of this community are interested in mental health funding. They have asked for explanations, and they say to me that they cannot work it out. Even if you are prepared to sit down and explain it, even though you did not do it in the Estimates Committee, the process is appalling.

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