Page 2716 - Week 07 - Thursday, 3 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government budget only rolled over $12 million of its funding; whereas Labor rolled over $107 million of unspent money in its 2007-08 budget. This is an increase of almost 900 per cent. Labor has rolled over as much as $124 million, as it did in 2006-07, amounting to over 1,000 per cent above the rollovers experienced by the previous government. This rollover of funding reflects several pea and thimble tricks.
Labor has allowed large projects to drag on longer than they should. For instance, the long delay of the Gungahlin Drive extension project has falsely propped up budget numbers in budget after budget, making the capital works budget appear bigger than it ever really was. Some funding has been withdrawn and some projects cancelled all together after being announced in previous budgets. For instance, the 2005-06 budget papers confessed that $29 million worth of capital works funding from the previous budget had been withdrawn, while the 2006-07 budget referred to $8.2 million of funding having been scrapped.
The underspend by Labor is sometimes greater than suggested by the rollover of funds because underspend on some projects is often eaten up by blow-outs on others. For example, in 2005-06, the Labor government reported $9.7 million in underspend appropriations from the previous year; yet only $30 million of rolled over financing was available to offset capital works in 2005-06.
The budget numbers are plainly a ruse, as exposed by the capital works reports. These reports provide detail after the event on how much has been spent and, as we have shown on a number of occasions, Labor has failed to spend between a third and a half of what they pledged to spend at budget time. Yet Labor plainly knew the budget numbers were false, because each year they have provided significantly less funding than was required to fulfil their budget pledges. This has resulted in an acquittal of 78 to 91 per cent of funds provided.
Any Labor pledge on capital works spending is not worth the paper it is written on, and the people of Gungahlin and the people of Belconnen who drive on the GDE or who drive on William Hovell Drive every day know that that is the case. Based on Labor’s past performance, any budget number of capital works could be reduced by somewhere between a third and a half and arrive somewhere closer to the truth of what has been proposed.
We have seen, year after year, underspends in excess of 35 per cent on the capital works budget. In 2002-03, it was 37 per cent; in 2003-04, it was 36 per cent; in 2004-05, it was 48 per cent; again, 48 per cent in 2005-06; and in 2006-07, another 38 per cent. This goes to show that the Stanhope government does not have the capacity to deliver infrastructure for the people of the ACT.
Let us look at some of the examples that we have, and I will turn to areas in my particular portfolio area. For the past seven years, the Stanhope government has neglected our water security. Labor’s one-trick response to the drought was to impose water restrictions, rather than to enhance Canberra’s water storage. Over four years ago, in February 2004, the Canberra Liberals announced their intention to commence work on the Tennant dam, with storage of 138 gigalitres. For many years, Labor had ignored the need for more water storage, despite evidence that water restrictions by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .