Page 1765 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
surplus in this last financial year. Mr Stefaniak and Mr Mulcahy make criticisms of this surplus. To some extent, a surplus is something fairly distant from the experience of members of the Liberal Party in government in this place. We never forget that, in seven years of government in the territory from 1995 on, the Liberal Party led off with four consecutive deficits—very significant deficits, large deficits.
It started off with a $300 million deficit and delivered deficits of over $100 million in each of the next three years. There were accumulated deficits of over $680 million in its first four years of government. After that, it did not make up the ground. Over the term of government, the Liberal legacy in the territory—over the span of its time in office—was essentially to leave a negative net deficit position within the territory. That is quite unique. It is distinct from this government’s performance—six budgets, six surpluses. The Liberal party in government—those who would pretend to be the great money managers—led off with four straight deficits, and significant, big deficits. That will always be the history and the legacy.
We have again been treated to a chorus of complaint from Mr Mulcahy in relation to the surplus that has been delivered by the government—a surplus of $117 million, a surplus that was delivered to that extent as a result of a $70 million shift in the last quarter. This is unique. This is not the experience of other governments. It has never happened before. A sign of incompetence? I wonder whether that is what Mr Mulcahy, in one of his many friendly fireside chats with the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, would say in terms of Peter Costello’s unintended and unexpected revenue forecasts.
The 2006-07 budget is the one against which we are being so roundly castigated for a $200 million turnaround over the course of a year, with $70 million of that occurring in the last quarter. In that budget, Peter Costello delivered a pot of revenue $3.8 billion larger than he forecast 12 months previously. What do Richard Mulcahy and Bill Stefaniak say about that? In the last financial year, Peter Costello was $3.8 billion out—more than our entire budget: $1 billion more than the entire ACT budget. In the last financial year, Peter Costello underestimated revenue by $1 billion more than the entire ACT budget. He was out by $3.8 billion in 2006-07.
Let us do a little review of the last three years of Richard Mulcahy’s great hero. In 2006-07, the last year, Peter Costello underestimated revenue by $3.8 billion. In 2005-06 Peter Costello underestimated revenue by $7.4 billion. That is twice as much as the ACT budget—no, more: 2½ times as much. In 2005-06 Peter Costello’s revenue estimates in the financial year were out by $7.4 billion—2½ times greater than the entire ACT budget. In 2004-05, Peter Costello’s revenue estimates were out by $13.4 billion. In 2004-05 Peter Costello underestimated revenue by $13.4 billion.
Bill Stefaniak and Richard Mulcahy, in their speeches on this subject—and Richard Mulcahy has just repeated it now—have said that the underestimation of revenue to this extent is a sign of gross incompetence. He levels that at me. What does he say about Peter Costello’s $24 billion understatement of revenue over the last three years? (Time expired.)
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.09): I rise to speak on this MPI about the open and accountable government that we are supposed to have—the Clayton’s open and accountable government. I want to draw attention to a number of examples of how this government is not open and accountable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .