Page 2177 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The first of the statements deals with changes to the Appropriation Act to on-pass increases in Commonwealth funding, under section 49A of the Act, and to transfer funds that are no longer required in certain programs to be used in other programs. In other words, it provides a degree of flexibility, which does allow you to manage well. The second statement concerns an increase in the amount available to the Treasurer's Advance to allow funds to be made available for various programs. To do Mr Kaine credit, he did at least allow that these flexibilities are necessary tools for use by government to reflect the changing needs that arise in the course of the year. At about that point, I think Mr Kaine and I would part company.
I will turn to some of the comments made by Mr Kaine. I can appreciate Mr Kaine's extreme chagrin over the surplus we have achieved on the recurrent budget for last year. Our modest surplus does, of course, stand in contrast to the small deficit in Mr Kaine's one and only budget. I did not make a huge song and dance about Mr Kaine's deficit because it was not a large one, and I think Mr Kaine ought to be gracious enough to allow that a surplus, and particularly one that is modest, is a good thing and can reassure the community that their financial situation is being well managed. As I said, I can understand Mr Kaine's extreme chagrin on this matter. What I cannot understand is his extreme flexibility on the question of how that surplus ought to be represented by him as, presumably, the alternative Treasurer.
Mr Kaine started off by making comments to the effect that the surplus should have been higher. Because, as he rightly commented, we do not have the problems that are being experienced in Victoria or South Australia, he seems to think that we should have had a higher surplus. Mr Kaine variously referred to the surplus as modest, as not high enough and, finally, as something that should have been spent anyway. I am at a loss to explain Mr Kaine's real views on the fact that we have achieved a surplus, other than that he is extremely chagrined, and I can well understand that. Mr Kaine made a couple of other comments that I think deserve to be addressed. He claimed that in some way the ACT's expenditure on education would, or should, result, or has resulted, in a reduction in funding through the Grants Commission process. I am sure Mr Kaine knows that this is a pretty silly proposition. In fact, it is absolute nonsense. The Grants Commission's assessment is conducted independently - certainly independently of the ACT's expenditure policies.
I would like to comment also on Mr Kaine's remarks about health being the only area of supplementation. If he had a close look at the documents he would see that that is just not the case, and it is silly to suggest that it is. It is true to say that the health budget has been brought under control and that we will never again see the likes of the $17m blow-out that we saw under Mr Kaine's and Mr Humphries's carriage of that portfolio. The supplementation to health, education, and so on was in accordance with normal processes, and in fact applies to all programs, for example, for wage and salary increases, and in the case of health the business rules codify this matter. The business rules, I believe, are necessary, given that there can be large changes in the parameters in health, such as, for example, the major impact of changes in the patient mix. It would be a poor financial system indeed that did not allow you to take account of those major parameter changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .