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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (21 May) . . Page.. 1559 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

It was said earlier by Mr Whitecross that somehow I had indicated in the Estimates Committee that revenue was on target. Mr Speaker, I have just been looking at the Estimates Committee report. I have made the comment on many occasions, in the press and in this place, that revenue projections are simply not on target. I thought it was very important to make that comment. They are not on target for a number of reasons, which I have stated in this place before, in the media and at the Estimates Committee - because of industrial action, because of a downturn in conveyancing fees, and for other reasons as well. I thought it was important to put on the record again, Mr Speaker, that revenue simply is not on target.

It is also interesting that those opposite continue to make comments about borrowings. If they knew anything about appropriation Bills, they would know that appropriation Bills actually do not set borrowings at all. In fact, within the limits of the Loan Council, we could borrow the whole appropriation if we chose to or if we had somebody who would lend it to us. This Appropriation Bill - or, for that matter, the previous one - does not place limits on the Government in terms of borrowings. So, this Appropriation Bill in no way increases the Government's capacity - - -

Mr Berry: No, nobody said that it did.

MRS CARNELL: They did, Mr Berry.

Mr Berry: No; they said that you can borrow it if you want to.

MRS CARNELL: They did indicate that the Government could somehow borrow more money. That simply is not the case at all, Mr Speaker. It has also been indicated that we have the money in the budget; therefore, we should just move it around and not go down this path. Mr Speaker, if those opposite really believe that it is all right to move significant amounts of money - $14.2m - from a capital budget into a recurrent budget, then I think they really have a lot to learn about accounting principles generally, and particularly about the way finances of government work. We have made it clear, Mr Speaker, that that approach is simply not one that we would follow. We do not believe that it follows appropriate accounting principles. But, obviously, those opposite, for whatever reason, do believe that.

In the Estimates Committee it was made very clear that there were a number of sources that this $14.2m could come from; but it was never claimed that it would come from all three, or, for that matter, any particular one of the three. Again, I was having a look at the transcript and I noticed that Mick Lilley, actually in the transcript, made the point that it could come from any one of those sources or a combination of all three. At that stage, we were not absolutely confident that there would be sufficient money in the capital works program; but, as the weeks progressed, it became fairly obvious that the $14.2m would be available, unfortunately, in capital works alone.

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