Page 1598 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
identified in future budgets. That was in 2009. We were told in 2010 that the remaining savings will be achieved in future budgets. So we will probably hear in 2011 that the future savings will be achieved in future budgets.
There was one neat saving that the Treasurer latched onto. That, of course, was the reduction of the provision for the Treasurer’s advance. I am glad to have helped. She said earlier that we never help. She never gave me credit for that one, because when we put that out before the 2008 election, we were soundly lambasted by the Treasurer and her colleagues. But they took it when they needed it, did they not? They took the Liberal Party idea and they said, “That is a good idea.” So there you go; we have helped the Treasurer. You might at least give us the credit for it.
Madam Assistant Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by quoting the findings made by our now former Auditor-General Tu Pham in her report on the 2009-10 financial audit that was delivered in December 2010. In commenting on the ACT’s long-term financial position, Tu Pham said:
The Territory’s long-term financial position weakened significantly in 2009-10. However, its position was stronger than estimated in the budget.
The long-term financial position is expected to further weaken over the forward years.
(Time expired).
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (4.17): Listening to the Treasurer’s rejoinder I am reminded of the various alternative budgets that have been proposed by those opposite since 2001. I could sum them all up by describing them as a piece of paper with “please turn over” on both sides of the page, and that would keep those opposite busy for about a week I would suggest to you.
One of the problems in this place is that some people deliver strong fiscal management and responsible fiscal management, and some people really do not know what it means. You would have expected in previous budgets, for example, that when in opposition you would promote an alternative; you would say, “Well, I am not going to expend on this, but I will expend here,” or, “I will get the money to do this by getting it from somewhere else.” I will give you an example of that.
I think Mr Smyth and also Mr Stefaniak—I could be wrong here—said that they would not spend $100 million on a jail; rather, they would put $100 million into health services and get us more nurses. You might say that that sounds like at least an alternative. The argument that I have with it, though, is that the $100 million was capital funds in the prison and Mr Smyth wanted to apply it to the recurrent provision of extra nurses. You would expect somebody who has been around as long as those opposite have to know the difference between capital and recurrent. If you do not know the difference between capital and recurrent it means that you did not actually do your homework in budgeting 101 and so you do not really have the credibility to talk about strong fiscal management.
I thank Mr Hanson for raising this matter of public importance on the importance of fiscal discipline. As the Treasurer has indicated, fiscal discipline is a fundamental
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video