Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 5 Hansard (1 April) . . Page.. 1607..
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
MR SPEAKER (Mr Rattenbury) took the chair at 10 am and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella): I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, yesterday the Treasurer said, in answer to a question in regard to the consolidated financial monetary report and the revision of the operating account:
The only time those monthly updates included the revised operating result was the month following the publication of the midyear review and budget, and we do that in our quarterly reports.
She then went on to say:
You tabled the quarterly reports monthly, Mr Smyth. You did not table the revised operating result.
Mr Speaker, this is wrong. The Carnell and Humphries governments tabled monthly financial reports in accordance with section 26 of the FMA as it stood at that time. If members would like to consult the index on page (ciii) they will see a list of all the monthly consolidated financial reports as tabled by the former Liberal government.
In regard to whether or not a revised operating result was included, if members would like to consult those documents they will see that in each month the result was revised. I will take 1999 as an example. In January 1999 the budget said that the result would be a deficit of $139 million; the year to date at that stage was meant to be a loss of $38 million. In fact, the monthly update said it was $24 million and the full year projection was $140 million. That is the month following the end of the half-year. The February result, which changes, says that again the starting point for the full year is 139—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take a seat, Mr Smyth. A point of order, Mr Corbell?
Mr Corbell: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Smyth is perfectly entitled to correct the record where he believes that he has been misrepresented, but I think he has done so and he is now moving into a debate on the issue. He should restrict his comments to where he has been misrepresented.