Page 540 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having the would-be Professor Smyth seek to lecture people in this place on economics is the biggest joke. The irony in all of this is that, throughout the period of the former federal government, efficiency dividends were standard and routine practice. One need only go back to the 1997 budget to indicate that a two per cent efficiency dividend featured there and continued throughout.
I go to the financial statements and the additional budget estimates of the National Museum of Australia in 2005-06 where they make the point that the efficiency dividend that was asked of them during that period was 1.25 per cent; that was an increase in the 2005-06 year. What did they say? They said there was a reduction in the appropriation revenue but the museum did not expect this to have a significant impact on operations.
So for those opposite to begin this campaign and say that efficiency dividends are a new thing or are not something that the previous federal Liberal government sought in every budget year from these same national institutions goes to highlight the extreme ignorance of the shadow Treasurer in terms of responsible budget management. It is entirely inconsistent. I missed the shock and outrage and the series of media statements from those opposite when in every federal budget from 1996 right through to the last one an efficiency dividend was required from these national institutions.
Senator Carr asked a question on notice about the efficiency dividend in Senate estimates in relation to the 2005-06 budget, and asked a range of questions of the National Gallery including what was the financial impact of the efficiency dividend in terms of the financial year and out years and what would the impact of this be. It is interesting that the answer at the time from the National Gallery was:
The impact of the efficiency dividend on various components of the Gallery’s operations has been taken into account in its planning processes over the years, along with parameter adjustments.
The Gallery is required to manage the delivery of outcomes and outputs within its resource allocations.
The Gallery has not planned to cut any specific programs as a result of the efficiency dividend.
The Gallery will continue to provide core functions.
The Gallery does not anticipate difficulties in attracting and retaining high quality staff as a result of the efficiency dividend.
That was in 2005. I will happily table that question on notice and the answer. So, for all of the indignation and all of the outrage of those opposite, I wonder where they were in 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01 and through every budget of the previous federal Liberal government—right up to the last one. Efficiency dividends have been required of these national institutions every year. So to suggest that this is some sort of new and significant imposition on these organisations is clearly not true.
What was also missing in the opposition’s presentation on this motion was the reason why the Rudd government is pursuing efficiency dividends—the risk to Canberra
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .