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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 111 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The November report continues an improvement on previous reports. Not only does it represent another quantum leap in accountability for the Territory, but it sets a new standard of government accountability in this country. Mr Speaker, I presented the Government's first consolidated report last year for the end of September so as to ensure that there was, for the first time, 1996-97 budget information available in a fully accountable framework with which to compare the monthly information as required by the FMA. The October report was presented soon after. The November report presents in great detail analysis and explanations of variations from year to date budget in each item of the Territory's operating account and balance sheet.

Mr Whitecross: Except that the year to date budgets were wrong.

MRS CARNELL: That is absolutely wrong, Mr Speaker.

It also summarises variations in expenses and revenues for each agency of the ACT Government. Yet the Opposition, rather than meet its duties to properly analyse the report and contribute where necessary to making provision of services in the Territory accountable, has resorted - wait for this, Mr Speaker - to political opportunism. It is extremely hard to believe that, Mr Speaker. I am sure that those opposite would never be involved in political opportunism and would always be interested in the figures and the facts; but just not in this case, Mr Speaker!

When I presented the November report, the Leader of the Opposition's published comments ignored the contents of the report. Contrary to Mr Whitecross's public comments, the ACT did not, at the time of the November report, receive a grant from the Commonwealth in lieu of the Commonwealth Bank share float payment. In fact, this payment was budgeted for in November and its non-receipt actually adversely affected our performance in the year to November. The payment was actually received in December. So, when Mr Whitecross said that the reason that the budget was all right was that we had received the Commonwealth Bank money, he was wrong. We actually had not received the Commonwealth Bank money until December. So, Mr Speaker, it showed that the situation was even better than it was represented to be.

Mr Whitecross also claimed that payroll tax was seriously under budget, whereas the November report clearly states that this was entirely due to deficiencies in the accrual recognition procedures which excluded some accrued but unpaid revenues at month end. It just shows that he simply does not understand what he is talking about. In fact, Mr Speaker, the report stated that actual collections were above budget, and I can inform the Assembly that OFM's latest full year projection for payroll tax earnings is $1.5m above the original budget.

Further, Mr Speaker, the Opposition continues to make noises about conspiratorial delays in presenting monthly data to the Assembly. The question must be asked: Would this Opposition or would this Assembly really prefer to revert to the incomplete and murky financial statements that we used to get in the olden days under them? Quite seriously, I would be very surprised if the Assembly were at all interested in that.

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