Page 2619 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unlike the ACT—
and net government debt has been eliminated …
It also makes the following observation:
The biggest potential threats to Australia’s winning streak are political rather than economic.
In conclusion, we have never seen the federal government acknowledged for its contributions. Apparently it is all the work of the ACT government. It is certainly never acknowledged that the commonwealth has a role.
MR SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.54): It is important that Treasury gives dispassionate apolitical advice and it is also important that that advice is heeded. When I wonder why the government felt it necessary to commission a separate analysis, which we now know as the fundamental review, I suppose I think of my own role as a mother. My own advice about wholesome diet and so on is not heeded. But when I send my daughter to a naturopath and the naturopath tells her the same thing, she is more likely to take that advice. That is the only metaphor that helps me understand why the Costello review was seen as necessary. Of course, it is important to remember that the Costello review was not dispassionately and objectively written. An insider wrote it, so to speak.
However, it is pleasing to see that the ACT government has adopted GFS reporting because this makes the government’s accounts more transparent to public scrutiny. Mr Stanhope has said in this Assembly that under the GFS measure the territory budget will record considerable deficits. That is one of the reasons why no earlier government ever moved to GFS. He also says that the adoption of GFS is consistent with his government’s strategy of reducing reliance on land sales and unexpected stock market windfalls. I think the Liberals and Greens agree with this move and are pleased that land sales will be recorded as asset sales, rather than operating revenues and gains, and that losses on superannuation investments are excluded from measures of revenue.
Given all this, it was confusing to hear the Treasurer’s claims that the 2006-07 budget is in an estimated surplus position of around $120.5 million and then the Liberals’ claim, or counterclaim, that under Australian accounting standards we have a deficit of $16.4 million and under GFS a deficit of $80.3 million. For members of our community that are not fully aware of the different accounting systems operating, this makes it very difficult to assess what the real budgetary situation is. Of course that is what it is like out there in the community. Absolute confusion reigns.
It has been open to every government to make the transition to GFS, and I congratulate the Stanhope government on being the one that has taken this action. It was obviously a difficult nettle to grasp and I suppose it is understandable that the large surplus under the old accounting standard was too good an opportunity to let pass without at least one more press release.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .