Page 2093 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this point, there is no clear answer. However, it does give us pause for thought and add weight to the need for a review of our process.
I feel it is appropriate for me to make some brief comments on the dissenting report, particularly given the strong criticisms of both the committee and me personally. The accusation that we failed to acquit the task of scrutinising the budget or present an honest appraisal of the proposed expenditure is simply false. The committee does not pretend that it has all the answers or that more could not be done with greater resources. However, the committee is confident that it has captured all of the substantive issues and provided constructive and reasoned explanations for proposals for change.
It should be noted that a number of the dissenting recommendations closely reflect the recommendations of the committee, and I am at a loss to explain why the dissenting members would not wish to put their names against what are essentially the same recommendations.
I note that the dissenting report on a number of occasions refers to a view held by the committee. This is, of course, not the case, and it is very remiss of the dissenting members to use this terminology in a dissenting report. The committee had not seen this document prior to the final copy being delivered to committee members late yesterday afternoon.
A further general comment that I would like to make is that the dissenting report is very poorly referenced and makes countless assertions with no source to back up their veracity. I think it is very poor that there are many direct quotes that are not referenced, let alone supported by information such as economics figures.
I would like to briefly reflect on a couple of substantive matters raised in the dissenting report. Firstly, on the issue of employment forecasts, I note that page 4 of the ACIL Tasman report says:
… a forecast of –¼ per cent for 2009-10 appears reasonable.
No mention of this is made in the dissenting report.
Secondly, the dissenting report at page 38 asserts that, because of the error in the employment growth forecast, we “can expect to collect more payroll tax revenue than has been forecast in the budget”. Interestingly, no reference is provided for this in the dissenting report. It is interesting because this does not reflect at all the evidence given to the committee. I refer the Assembly to page 1635 of the transcript. When asked about the impact of changed employment figures on other forecasts in the budget, and specifically payroll tax, Mr Broughton replied:
… employment growth is happening for employers who do not pay payroll tax. That could either mean the commonwealth, which does not pay payroll tax, or the small business sector, which fits below the threshold for payroll tax.
Mr Seselja asked:
So the updated figures on payroll tax to this financial year—are they up on what is forecast for the estimated outcome or are they tracking at the same levels?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video