Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2317 ..

MR SMYTH

of the other numbers contained in the budget. Since the first week of May, we have proved to be correct. Growth has not softened, and inflation has not got out of hand.

This budget is ill informed. It has taken a very conservative path to create a picture-the Treasurer is right. But we now know, through the Chief Minister-certainly not through the Treasurer-that the surplus expected for this year is at least $40 million greater than had been expected. We were told of a $61.6 million surplus this year; we now know it is closer to $100 million. I could make a reasonable case that it is at least $107 million, and I have heard other figures quoted that would bring it somewhere between $120 million and $150 million.

The end point for this year is, of course, the start point for next year. If this year ends much higher than expected, there is the potential that we will not be in deficit but in surplus next year. And we, as the Assembly representing the taxpayers of Canberra, have a right to know that. We are being denied that right by the Treasurer, who refuses to update where we are at.

I specifically asked if the budget had improved, and the answer I got was that the budget position "has not deteriorated". The avoidance strategy of the Treasurer denies us the ability to debate this budget in the full light of what is known to the Treasurer. We should be given that information simply because it will have an influence on all the decisions that we make. It may lead to us redirecting some funds, increasing some funds or decreasing some funds. But we cannot do any of that unless we know what the number is.

There is also the question of when the Treasurer knew that things had improved significantly; I am told he has known for some time. Again, the Treasurer is very skilful in avoiding answering. He said, "Well, yes-things fluctuate. This goes up and that goes down and this changes and that changes really until the end of the year. When we do the audits and they are signed off by the Auditor-General and we get them back in September is the time that we will truly know."

The Treasurer is updated, I suspect, weekly, and would therefore have a better picture of his $61.6 million. His refusal to share that with members of the Assembly is a sad indictment of a government that boasted that it would be more honest, open, accountable and transparent. I guess they did not tell us when.

The budget supplied as a document has raised some issues for the committee. Some of these are hoary old chestnuts that are drawn out every year and recommendations that are made every year. But there appeared to be consensus among committee and other members-indeed, some of the ministers would concede this, given the tedious nature of the questioning when you are asked the same questions across all the portfolios-that some of the performance indicators are next to useless.

We have all promised, over time-perhaps we did when we were in government-that we would attempt to improve it. There is a real case now for looking at the performance indicators and making sure that they actually mean something. One of the performance indicators-the function of the Central Financing Unit, on page 90, I think-has been discontinued. To have a performance indicator to determine that you

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .