Page 3639 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
what could not under GFS. There is still an inclination to account according to the Australian accounting standard.
As to the Treasury and its budgeting—and I will provide some additional information on this—if one assesses the budgeted figure with outcome provided by Treasury traditionally over the last 17 or 18 years one will find on average across the years that, by comparison across the jurisdictions, ACT Treasury’s outcomes in relation to the budgeted position as compared to outcome are consistent with or better than almost every other Australian jurisdiction. I say this in an environment where four weeks ago Peter Costello announced without fanfare that in his midyear review he had revised the commonwealth surplus up by $5 billion. That followed the budget position presented by Peter Costello four months ago in the commonwealth budget, of a projected surplus or a surplus of $17 million.
Mr Mulcahy: They give tax cuts; you don’t.
MR STANHOPE: So we are changing the subject now. The question was about—
MR SPEAKER: No, we are not changing the subject.
MR STANHOPE: No, we are not; the Liberal Party is. I will just go to context. The question is about Treasury’s capacity. Mr Pratt’s question was about the record and the competence of the ACT Treasury. When one compares budgeted position with outcome, the ACT Treasury, in its budgeting, performs as well as any other jurisdiction in Australia—having regard to the fact, by way of comparison, that Peter Costello, in his last budget, increased his final position by $17 billion. And within three months of changing his anticipated surplus by $17 billion he revised it up by another $5 billion.
I will lay my Treasury’s $55 million variance in three months against Peter Costello’s $5 billion variance in six weeks. We get some idea of issues which treasuries across the nation face. In the ACT, ACT Treasury was $5 million out in its guesstimates after three months. The federal Treasury was $5 billion out after six weeks.
Taxation—revenue
MRS BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question, through you, is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, last week you introduced the second appropriation bill, which seeks to appropriate $36.254 million for additional government expenditure. In 2007-08 the Treasurer’s advance is $29.2 million. Treasurer, are any of the items of expenditure in the second appropriation bill items that could have been funded by an appropriation from the Treasurer’s advance? If so, why have you found it necessary to appropriate more funds without first utilising the Treasurer’s advance in the first budget?
MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I have not done an item-by-item analysis of whether or not the expenditures included in the second appropriation might have been funded by the Treasurer’s advance. Of course, there are significant and close rules and legislative requirements in relation to the use of the Treasurer’s advance and it may be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .