Page 2447 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
APPROPRIATION BILL 1992-93
Debate resumed.
MR WESTENDE: Let me now speak of my shadow portfolio, urban services. In the urban services area, last year's Budget Paper No. 2 included the decision to consolidate many of its corporate services into a single Corporate Services Bureau within the Department of Urban Services. It was said that this, together with other rationalisations in common services, would produce savings of $1.85m last year. In fact, there was a $3.4m overrun, the equivalent of 7.6 per cent, even after $500,000 had been transferred from the capital budget. Budget Paper No. 2 this year will tell the story.
Let us talk about public transport and ACTION. The operating subsidy per passenger rose 0.7 per cent. The target was a reduction of 4 per cent, so this is a 5 per cent variation. Service delays and failures were 1.5 per cent of total services. Budget Paper No. 3 states, "but most of the failures were attributable to industrial disputation". Why use the word "but"? The ACTION accounts display the general deception which many commentators have already pointed out with regard to this budget - that is, what you save on the recurrent swings you lose on the capital roundabouts.
Consider Budget Paper No. 3, page 176. We are told that contributions to the Consolidated Fund in 1992-93 are up nearly $1m on 1991-92 because of a full year of repayments under the so-called bus acquisition and replacement program of both interest, $460,000, and principal, $496,000, from 1992-93 to 1995-96. Deducting these leaves what may be called a standard payment of $459,000 to the Consolidated Fund, which is still $1,000 down on the $460,000 of 1991-92. Meanwhile, on the appropriations side, recurrent subventions were $52.9m in 1991-92, actual, versus a planned $51.9m in 1992-93 - that is, they are to be down $1m - while capital advances for the two years are $14.1m versus $13.2m, an increase of $1.1m. So the total appropriation is essentially unchanged.
The decrease in recurrent subventions is touted as a saving as part of ACTION's three-year budget strategy involving a $10m reduction, but it is offset on the capital side. There is reason to doubt that even these modest recurrent subvention savings will be achieved. The decrease in recurrent subventions reflects the first of a three-year budget strategy, and it is admitted to be an estimate, which is aside from any growth in services, indexation, new policy and restructuring initiatives.
The clearest picture is given on pages 178 and 179 of Budget Paper No. 3, and in particular in the footnotes. In brief, that picture is as follows: There are changes in recurrent subventions and expenditures. The budget strategy, efficiency savings and removal of redundancy funds amount to $3.532m. This is offset by increases in debt servicing, indexation, the superannuation guarantee charge and funds for the acquisition of automatic ticketing - a total of $2.471m. In addition, fares are projected to be up $828,000, or 5.9 per cent, due to a 4 per cent increase in fares and a projected increase in patronage. The implication is that patronage will rise more than fares. This, and slight changes in trust revenue, leaves the net recurrent position $183,000 down, at $69.9m.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .