Page 648 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
History will show that only this government had the courage to move to the general government finance sector accounting standard. The Liberals in seven years were not game to do it. They were not game to move away from the Australian accounting standard. They were not game to take themselves off the teat of land sales. They did not have the guts, they did not have the moral strength, to face the community and say, “This is something we must do.” We took the hard decisions. We have got the budget back on track to be balanced. The deficit is down to $40 million.
In the context of the matter of public importance that is now before us, one is reminded of the dramatic front pages which Mr Smyth produced at exactly this time last year. Remember that fantastic photograph of Mr Smyth standing up with his front-page coup: “Budget deficit for 2006-07 heading for $390 million”. Remember that? Actually, the Liberals sacked him a month later. I often think the catalyst for Mr Stefaniak finding the courage to challenge was in fact the absolutely appalling embarrassment which Mr Smyth created by his claims of a $390 million deficit. It is now down to, I think, $40 million. He was only $350 million out. In fact, it was not courage on Mr Stefaniak’s part. Actually, Mr Mulcahy prodded him forcefully to make the challenge. Of course, it will be Mr Mulcahy who will lead the next challenge as well.
What I have been saying is at the heart of this matter of public importance. Why come in here today and rant and rave and criticise the steps that this government has taken and the revenue measures that we have put in place to ensure that we as a community pay for the services that are delivered so that we do not have to rely on the continued sale of the family jewels? We have achieved that; we have removed our reliance on the unsustainable source of land sale receipts as a revenue measure. In other words, if the community rightly requires or demands the provision of this level of services, the community must pay and not rely, as every other government has done, on land sale receipts.
Mr Stefaniak and Mr Mulcahy can say whatever they like, but they propped up their Australian accounting standard budgets with land sale receipts and superannuation receipts. Mr Mulcahy quite rightly excludes himself from that, and he is entitled to do so; but Mr Stefaniak is not. Mr Stefaniak balanced his budgets on land sale receipts and by refusing to fund essential services like mental health, child protection, disability services, community health, and Aboriginal issues and health. When we came to government, issues around Aboriginal health and services were an absolute shambles; it was a scandal and it was across the board. That is what we inherited. That is how they balanced their budgets. Go back and have a look. They balanced their budgets by land sale receipts and by not funding mental health, not funding disability services, not funding child protection, not funding indigenous issues, not funding the community in any meaningful way, and not supporting health and providing the infrastructure that was needed. That is how they did it. If you cut those services to the bone, of course you can balance your budgets—but you leave a shocking mess for others to pick up. We picked it up and we fixed the mess.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.17): This debate seems to be centred on the shadow Treasurer’s assertion that as Labor has been in government since 2000 it has had plenty of time to practise good economic management and thereby it should have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .