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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2288 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

he proposed to spend this year's money on. It's about $8.5 million in round figures. The minister did that during the Estimates Committee and he tabled a copy of that document today.

I accept that the minister satisfied my requirement to about 95 per cent. I accept that I have enough information now to be able to track this over the next year and hold the minister accountable for what he spends the money on. That is, I think, the basic purpose of this statement in a budget of what the minister wants to spend and what he proposes to spend it on-so that we can hold the minister and the government accountable.

I say 95 per cent because there are still some items in here that do not fully explain. For example, there is just over a million dollars in three different packets. It adds up to $1,050,000, I think, and is described as "increase in price paid for outputs for significant pressures not covered by indexation". Now, I do not know what they are. I have no idea what "outputs for significant pressures not covered by indexation" are. Of the $8.84 million, there is about a million dollars in that category. The minister has not fully explained, but at least he has focused it down a bit so that we can hold him accountable later.

The other element is $1.2 million in output class 3.1 for "performance incentives targeting day surgery, day of surgery admissions, increased organ donation, identification of ATSI patients, reduction in nursing home-type patients, service delivery targets in emergency and reduction in surgery waiting times". That is a long shopping list on which the minister proposes to spend $1.2 million, but he only proposes to spend it in those areas in terms of performance incentives. I do not know what the performance incentives are.

Mr Moore: Yes. I will explain.

MR KAINE: Your explanation does not tell us just what you have planned to do with that $1.2 million either. So there is $2.2 million there where you give us a general idea of what you are proposing to do, but it is still quite non-specific. However, as I say, it provides me with enough information, I think, further downstream, maybe in three months, six months or 12 months time, to ask you to account for it. From my viewpoint, that deficiency in the minister's budget has been rectified, and for that reason I will now support it.

The other matter of controversy, of course, is the shooting gallery. I have had any number of telephone calls, emails, and faxes over the last few days exhorting me to vote the budget down because I oppose the shooting gallery. Well, I wonder what people would want me to do as a general principle in this place, having lost a debate in the Assembly on whatever subject you care to choose. In some cases in the future the subject that I loose might be dear to the hearts of some people who now think I should change my mind, but in future they may think I should not change my mind because it might be detrimental to their interests.

I have stated publicly that I do not believe, in conscience, that I can vote the budget down because I do not believe in a shooting gallery when I have already participated in a debate in this place and a vote has been taken and the vote went against me. I have to accept that. I cannot change the vote. The interesting thing about this proposition is that

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