Page 1436 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seselja, resume your seat. Chief Minister, please maintain order. Mrs Dunne, cease interjecting.
Mrs Dunne: I have not said anything.
Mr Stanhope: That is a bit tough on Mrs Dunne.
MR SPEAKER: There was a conversation developing. Mr Seselja has the floor on the question that the amendment be agreed to.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What has been the Chief Minister’s response, apart from trying to twist the issue? It is to blame the accounting treatment. It is the accounting treatment that is wrong. That is the problem, and if we can just stick to the accounting treatment that we like, then it will be okay.
Using the system of government financial statistics, the 2005-06 financial year will see this government spend $394 million more than it has collected in revenues. The GFS further predicts a loss in 2008-09 of $332.6 million. These are the numbers the Chief Minister does not want to talk about. He would prefer it if we focused on the other figures. Yesterday the Chief Minister tried to dismiss GFS as not relevant. The ABS, the World Bank and all Australian jurisdictions, except Victoria and the ACT, are using GFS, but the Chief Minister says that this is an accounting treatment that is not relevant. That is not a creditable claim. The GFS does give us an idea of where we are going.
The warning signs have existed for some time. Many questions were raised when the former Treasurer retired so close to the budget. Now we have the answers to some of those questions. Now we know why the Treasurer wanted to get out—because the budget was in trouble. He was sick of not being listened to, sick of saying, “If we do not restrain the spending, we will be in big trouble in the coming years.” He was ignored and ignored and ignored and eventually, a couple of months before the budget, he pulled the plug. There was no surprise on the timing, Mr Speaker.
Let us compare the GFS with what is used by this government and what the Chief Minister would like us to focus on. The argument that the Chief Minister is using against GFS may be likened to owning a $1 million home but not having a job. What do you do? You liquidate your assets and create cash. But cash is not income. It is not a plan for the future, and that is what we are talking about here. We are trying to get a picture of the real state of the budget. We should be looking for a long-term solution, not a bandaid fix. That is why we are talking about the budgetary problems that we have and the GFS.
According to the Mid Year Review, the deficit is down to $37 million or something of that order. That is all well and good, but it is because the government sold a big piece of land in Fyshwick for $40 million. That was a nice little windfall, but that is a piece of land that we will never be able to sell again. It will not be an asset, an ongoing source of income. That piece of land in Fyshwick is gone. That is the point about GFS.
We have heard the Chief Minister defend his ignorance of the growth rate in the public service, and Mr Mulcahy has touched on this. The Chief Minister has claimed that he cannot be expected to read every report and understand the nuance of every increase in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .