Page 3136 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak: I withdraw.
MR STANHOPE: In the last 12 years, there have six years of Liberal government and there have been six years of Labor government. In the six years of Liberal government, four consecutive deficits were delivered, under the Australian accounting standard, of course, which we employed then—four consecutive deficits delivered by the Liberal Party. It delivered a deficit in 1995-96 of $334 million, followed by a deficit of $170 million, followed by a deficit of $157 million, followed by a deficit of $161 million. That is the Liberal Party record.
The Liberal Party is very comfortable with deficits. In their first four years of government, the Liberal Party delivered a combined deficit of $828 million. So one can understand a certain level of comfort that the Liberal Party had with deficits.
Mr Mulcahy: Is this the one that works better for you?
MR STANHOPE: The shadow treasurer interjects, “Under what accounting system?” I indicate: under the Australian accounting standard, which we utilised then for the next four years in our term of government. But we converted to GFS.
Mr Mulcahy: After I recommended the change.
MR STANHOPE: We then converted to GFS, as Mr Mulcahy continues to remind us, at his urging. But of course we, in having converted to GFS, take account, as do all the states and the Northern Territory, of some superannuation return, to ensure that we compare our budget—like with like—with the states and territories so that there is a possibility, an opportunity, for national comparisons so that the ACT budget can be appropriately compared with the budgets of the states and territories in relation to its underlying budget position.
This, of course, is the Liberal Party’s actions in the last week—a decision last week by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for health to expend in their first year in government $54 million on 100 acute care beds immediately, followed by an announcement by the shadow Treasurer, not to be outdone in making policy announcements by the current Leader of the Opposition, with a promise to cut $16½ million of revenue. That is a combined $70 million hit to the bottom line.
Mr Mulcahy, as shadow Treasurer and spokesperson for the Liberal Party, of course, has been out there spruiking how important surpluses are. I can go to his quotes in his press releases on this very matter. He justifies the decision to spend an immediate $54 million—I heard him on Ross Solly’s show this week—and to remove $16½ million of revenue, a total hit of $70 million, on the basis that we are cashed up; there is a significant surplus; we do not need it.
But then we go to the statements which the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have made over the last three months—as recently as August. For instance, in June, the Leader of the Opposition said:
This budget is full of half-truths and at best the surplus is just a paper surplus, mostly made up of gains from superannuation investment (not consistent with the GFS accounting system) …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .