Page 66 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
people of Canberra for the way in which she has twisted the analysis of the review of the first six months of this financial year.
As if that is not enough, the review of the first half of the financial year notes that the many parameter adjustments that have been made to the budget are just technically driven. Again, these parameter changes have little or nothing to do with the Treasurer’s involvement in the Treasury portfolio. They are the result of largely outside factors. These variations have occurred largely because of reductions in the GST pool, reduced payments from the commonwealth, recovering global financial markets or rising interest rates. Again, these are factors that have not been really the result of any direct action taken by this Treasurer.
What is just as concerning is that the Treasurer, having misinterpreted the revised budget outcome, has now suggested that the strict restraint on spending should be eased. So shallow is the Treasurer’s understanding of fiscal policy that, on the back of substantial reductions in the deficit for 2010-11, she is now saying that the purse strings can be loosened. We can, to quote from yesterday’s Canberra Times, “relax the efficiency dividends”—the Treasurer is quoted as saying—“We can introduce some flexibility around our savings; we can ease up on allocated savings.”
I remind the Assembly: what is the major reason for the change in the immediate budget outlook? It is a one-off revenue flow from a tax assessment. There is no significant underlying change to the outlook for the ACT. If anything, the picture is far from clear, with the two big factors being reducing GST revenues—and considerable caution among consumers across the country is continuing—and concerns about decisions that may or may not be made by the commonwealth relating to spending.
It is also important to highlight another outcome from the half-year review. If we go to page 5, all is revealed. The Treasurer’s plan, you will recall, is to return the ACT budget to surplus by 2013-14. Table 1, however, shows that the forecast over the three outyears are for deficits for the underlying net operating balance.
After the effects of commonwealth stimulus payments are removed, what do we see? We see a deficit of $91 million this year, a deficit of $75 million in 2011-12, a deficit of $61 million in 2012-13 and a deficit of $24 million in 2013-14. According to her own numbers, the Treasurer’s plan is now off track. We must note in passing that this review has been prepared after the end of the calendar year. That is as it should be. The explicit acknowledgement on page 3 that this review takes into account information as at the end of the six-month period—that is, 31 December 2010—is welcomed.
Ms Gallagher: Can I get a tick for that, Brendan?
MR SMYTH: There you go. I always give you credit where you deserve it. It is not very often. This avoids the nonsense, of course, of a review of the six-month period using data that does not cover the complete six-month period, as this government has done previously.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video