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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 760 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

that the same cost model was used for the modelling that Mr Berry produced and submitted to arbitration when the VMOs dispute was on. So, if this cost model is fundamentally flawed - and I have certainly asked for an urgent investigation into the cost model - it is the same cost model that Mr Berry used as well.

Clearly, the budget process is not the same as a cost model. The Auditor-General has said in here that he is concerned that the figures that were used in the budget are not exactly the same as the ones that the cost model showed. The cost model is put together totally to predict savings, not as a budgetary method. But, certainly, if the cost model is even half as flawed as the Auditor-General said, then we need a new cost model.

Mr Moore: I reluctantly take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would really like to draw the Chief Minister's attention to the issue at hand. It is about recklessly misleading the house over claims. I can understand her putting in a history - that is important - but I draw the Chief Minister's attention to the time. I am sure that we would be prepared to give her as long an extension as she needs; but I would draw attention to the actual import of the motion, which is about recklessly misleading this house.

MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. I think that the Chief Minister is explaining the circumstances.

MRS CARNELL: I am interested in that point, Mr Moore, because what I am doing is explaining the Auditor-General's report, which I would have assumed was absolutely essential for the position that I am taking. My Government will obviously be referring the Auditor-General's report to the Public Accounts Committee. I must admit that I would have assumed that this debate would have been better held at that stage; but that is fine.

I think that it should be noted, and must be noted, that the same cost model was used by three different Health Ministers. So, certainly, when I came to the job I was given a cost model that was used by Mr Berry, that was used by Mr Connolly, that was actually used by Mr Humphries as well, I believe, and I had no reason whatsoever to doubt that that cost model was right. It had been used by all of the Health Ministers for various purposes. Obviously, I have learnt something by this exercise and I will now question all models that are sent my way. So, again, I come back to the fact that, if any Minister is given information that has been used by previous governments and there is no indication that there is anything particularly wrong with it, as it was used by both sides of the house, it must be questioned. I have to admit to not having questioned the cost model and what that cost model actually produced.

My preliminary assessment of the report is that the Auditor-General has had only a very short time to have a look at how the department's figures actually panned out. The Auditor-General does make the point that we will not achieve the savings this year; but savings will be achieved in the future if management is tight. I can guarantee that management is tight. I do not believe that I ever indicated in this house that we would make $2.6m or $2m savings in the first year. I indicated to this house time and time again, from the information that I had, that the contracts would result in $2m a year savings.

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