Page 1468 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
suggested that the commonwealth does not do that. No, the commonwealth does not. At this stage the commonwealth is the only jurisdiction that stands out from GFS.
Mr Mulcahy: You have been quoting all afternoon.
MR STANHOPE: The commonwealth does. It stands out. It adopts an underlying budget surplus, or deficit, methodology in the declaration of its surpluses. Interestingly, the suggestion that Mr Mulcahy or Mr Stefaniak might make in raising the commonwealth’s model as a model that perhaps the ACT might replicate or aspire to is that, were we to adopt the same basis of reporting as the commonwealth, our surpluses would actually increase between now and 2010-11. The surpluses that have been reflected in our bottom line for the outyears would increase. The initial year, 2007-08, would decline, but by 2010-11 the anticipated surplus under the commonwealth’s accounting methodology or treatment would increase to over $300 million.
The four-year total, or combined, surpluses under the commonwealth model in the ACT would actually increase the currently budgeted $320 million surplus to somewhere well in excess of $500 million.
Mr Barr: Really!
MR STANHOPE: Yes, $300 million in one year. If we adopted the commonwealth’s methodology and accounting treatment, the budget surplus in the ACT would be just over $300 million in 2010-11.
If the Liberal Party is suggesting that we should perhaps not be compared with the states and territories and should not account in the same way as the states and territories, if they intend to persist with their determination not to account for the long-term average return on superannuation of 7.5 per cent in their budgets, perhaps, just for the sake of comparison, we should compare our budget outcomes with those of the commonwealth. I do not have the final number but I know that in 2010-11, it is $310 million. I would be suggesting a budget surplus somewhere in the order of, perhaps, $500 million over four years.
Mr Mulcahy: It sounds a good figure, doesn’t it?
MR STANHOPE: I will confirm it. It is $310 million in 2010-11. We will work back from there. Whichever way you look at it, what we have is a Liberal Party that is determined, in government—it has made the commitment today publicly—if it is ever elected, to account pure GFS in its budgets. It will not take into account, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Mulcahy have told us today, long-term returns—currently averaging 7.5 per cent—on superannuation as every other government in Australia, except the commonwealth, do. The commonwealth uses a different methodology.
There we have it. Yes, we stand by the use of the adjusted GFS operating balance as a headline measure because it ensures that our accounting is consistent with every state and territory in Australia. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .