Page 2579 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As indicated by ACTEW at the estimates hearings, this process is not expected to be complete until at least the end of August. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the government to speculate on the final impact of the pricing determination until the process outlined in relation to asset impairment is complete and any level of any potential impact is known.
In the context of total budget revenue for the general government sector of $4.2 billion in 2013-14, the potential impact of the pricing determination is not material. It would therefore be inappropriate to hold up the debate of the appropriation bill for consideration of this matter at this time.
Further, it is important to note the dividend payments by ACTEW to government are but one source of government revenue. Any variation to ACTEW’s estimated payment of dividends in 2013-14 as a result of the ICRC determination is likely to be less than one per cent of total GGS revenues. This impact is not material and further, as I advised the Assembly yesterday, variations in other revenue streams are offset and can offset any impact. For example, GST payments from the commonwealth, in the update provided by the commonwealth government last week, increased, significantly mitigating the impact of any reduction in the ACTEW dividend. Correspondingly, the appropriation bill does not need any amendment to reflect the ICRC pricing determination for water and sewerage.
But more broadly, this motion indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the respective roles of and relationship between the budget and the appropriation bill. The ACT budget is a point-in-time estimate of future revenues, expenditure and other financial information relevant to individual agencies, the public trading enterprise sector, the general government sector and the whole of territory. So from the moment the budget is published, economic, commercial and fiscal events will result in variances from the budget estimates. In nearly all cases, these variances do not prompt the need to vary appropriations.
The Appropriation Bill 2013-14 is the mechanism for the appropriation of moneys for the 2013-14 financial year. It allows government agencies to spend money. It is not dependent on the sources of these moneys. Delaying the budget until the effect of the ICRC price determination is finalised would interrupt the operations of government. It would delay the start of a range of new projects and a range of new appropriations.
In establishing the budget estimates included in the 2013-14 budget for the Capital Metro Agency, the government recognised that it is an early-stage project in its planning phase. And as such, $18.7 million has been allocated for projects associated with capital metro. As my colleague Minister Corbell has indicated, the government will release relevant information about the project at the appropriate time, once the appropriate planning and investigative work is completed. This project will be managed professionally, and that is exactly what the government is doing.
In conclusion, the government does not support Mr Smyth’s motion. I always welcome considered and robust debate of the budget, and we will have a week of that next week, but what we are seeing this morning is certainly not that contribution from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video