Page 2987 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this place was for improved provision of information, and this year’s committee report made a similar recommendation.
The government, in its response to this year’s estimates report recommendation on this matter, asserts that the papers are of a high standard and are consistent with those of other jurisdictions. Whilst relatively speaking this may well the case, and I know that the papers are consistent with the relevant accounting standards, they do not provide anything more than a very superficial output cost. Whilst I do recognise that it is simply not practical to provide a thorough analysis of all initiatives in the papers, there must be some middle ground and means of providing supplementary information.
It is clear that members are unhappy with the amount of information they have available to assess the budget proposals. I have no clear answer for how this might be resolved but, as the estimates committee pointed out on page 21 of its report, the situation where the same amount of detail is provided for an expenditure of $200,000 for a feasibility study as is provided for major projects at a cost of $14.7 million does give rise to a significant issue. It is a good example and demonstrates the problem. (Second speaking period taken.) I hope that we can collectively and collaboratively move forward to achieve the best outcome.
Treasury is also responsible for the coordination and development of a range of cross-jurisdictional issues and COAG reforms. The most notable at the moment is, of course, the health reform, and I would like to emphasise the estimates committee recommendation No 14, that the Assembly be provided with updates on the process to ensure that to the greatest extent reasonably possible all members of this place are up to date with the negotiations and any subsequent changes to our budget. This is obviously a very significant issue that will be progressed in the coming financial year.
With the revenue management and revenue initiatives contained in this year’s budget, the first point to note is that the overall revenue to the territory will decline from last year’s outcome. This is primarily attributable to a reduction in revenue from the commonwealth and the wind down of the commonwealth stimulus package.
Taxation revenue provided for in the budget forecasts will rise by around two per cent. Whilst there are a number of charges—bus fares and parking, for example, that have been the subject of particular attention—it should be noted in relation to the total taxation collection that the wage price rise for the year to May was 4.3 per cent and the CPI annual change to March was 2.9 per cent. So it does appear that the forecast increase in taxation revenue is reasonable and that the real burden of the taxation will actually decline this year.
On the change of use charge, on which, of course, we have spent a lot of time today and during the estimates hearings, I would like to again make the point in the context of this debate that I do not believe that an argument can be put that the law should not be applied correctly, and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that the government could apply any law in a manner that was not consistent with the statute.
The rule of law upon which our system of government is premised is absolutely vital to the effective operation of our government. There has been a mistake, a very serious
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video