Page 1444 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I commend to members Budget Paper No 3 Federal Financial Relations 2005-06 from last night’s budget. It contains a really interesting chart. If you had paid attention in maths class at school, Mr Corbell, you would know that the steeper the gradient the bigger the change. On page 30 you will find chart 4: individual state general government sector net operating balance. For those opposite who perhaps do not read these sorts of documents, the preceding paragraph states:
The net operating balance measures, in accrual terms, the gap between a government’s expenses and revenue for a given period, and provides a good indication of the sustainability of the existing level of government services. An operating surplus indicates that a government can finance the services it provides in a period using revenues derived in that period. An operating deficit indicates that a government must borrow or sell assets in order to finance services provided in a period.
It is a case of borrow or sell. As Mr Seselja said, they are going to sell those school sites. If we look at the chart on page 30, the only jurisdiction below the zero mark, below where we want to be, is the ACT. When did we go below the line? Gee, we crossed the line in the 2002-03 budget! When did the GFS figures start to be used? It was in the 2002-03 budget. The Northern Territory goes above and below the line a bit so we need to read the chart in context. But, going back to basic school maths, as taught by Mr Cronin in maths class: the greater the gradient, the steeper the decline.
In ACT we have a slope that Michael Milton would love. I reckon he could go 170, 180, 190 or 200 kilometres an hour down this slope. The deficit is going $180 million, $190 million and $200 million down this slope. That is why we are asking for the report, the one on which Mr Costello gave briefings to certain people to expect a $190 million deficit. The potential is there.
The Canberra Times has done some research. Its sources report that Mr Costello said that potentially there is a $390 million deficit looming in the outyears. It is all in this chart. The Chief Minister has returned to the chamber. Chief Minister, page 30 of Budget Paper No 3 is fantastic reading.
Let us go back to the arrogant amendment moved by the Chief Minister. It commences:
(a) the fact that the government has delivered four straight budget surpluses …
What have you done with them? For a government to go from $705 million worth of additional revenue above expectation and $250 million in cash surpluses to nothing in the fifth year shows its ineptitude. The money is all gone. How much unencumbered cash is there in the coming budget? According to the midyear review, it is $900,000. You could not even build a kilometre of road for $900,000. Where has the $705 million gone? Where has the $250 million in cash surpluses gone?
The Chief Minister says, “It is because we have been making up for the critical areas neglected by previous governments.” The previous government did not have the luxury of surpluses or excess cash until our program of economic reform had made up for Labor’s $344 million operating loss when the budget was about $1.5 billion. Twenty per cent of the budget was the loss that Labor ran in office in 1995. We inherited
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .