Mr HATTON - 2001-05-30
Yesterday, on the ABC Radio Drive Time program, the Labor leader said in regard to the budget announced by the Treasurer that, and I quote, ‘Money has been ripped of other very important areas of our future, like millions out of Lands, Planning and Environment and millions out of Industry and Business’.
Can the minister responsible for these portfolios explain to this House whether this is so and if so, why? If it is not, what other explanation can there be for these changes?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It seems that Question Time this morning is turning into an education session for the opposition in regards to how a budget works and how you should read a budget. There has been much said this morning. Maybe in the next budget we should consider whether there should be an educational component put in there for that purpose because it is getting very tedious the way the opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, malign the budget
I will just go through the quote the member for Nightcliff was talking about. There was a lead-in straight after the Treasurer had been on the radio and then the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘I wish there were more good news stories in this budget because that’s what the Territory’s hanging out for basically’. The reporter, to his credit, said, ‘There is plenty of information though about increased funding for health, education and police all benefiting in the budget. There’s road works, so how can you not welcome these sorts of increases in funding?’. The member for Fannie Bay says, ‘Well, I certainly welcome increases in health, and I welcome increases in education. We will be taking a very close look at whether in fact they are increases per se or whether they are just keeping up with inflation. But take a quick look through the budget and you will see that money has been ripped off other very important areas for our future, like millions out of Lands, Planning and Environment, millions out of Industry and Business and so on’. The reporter said, ‘Well, where do you get that from?’. ‘Well, just take a look at Budget Paper No. 2, Paul, and you will see that in there, the allocations to various departments, that millions of dollars have been removed’.
Removed, Mr Speaker, from last year. Well ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: The Leader of the Opposition has priors for deceitfulness in this House.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member to withdraw.
A member: She used it herself a minute ago.
Mr SPEAKER: I know it is used here quite often across the Chamber, but for peace, let’s have it withdrawn.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw because of the respect I have for your office.
Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr BALDWIN: But if it is not that, then it has to be incompetence that leads to this accusation by the Leader of the Opposition. What she has obviously done is grab for any straw that she could when faced by a reasonably easy question from the reporter to cover herself in that she pretends to Territorians that she has some knowledge of what is really going on. We have seen it here again this morning - the Treasurer trying to explain to the Leader of the Opposition what this budget is all about and get some understanding in there, but it is not working.
Let me try to explain for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition. What she has done is looked at the 2000-01 estimated actual spending in Lands, Planning and Environment and Department of Industry and Business and the new 2001-02 budget amounts and noticed that there are variations downwards for those periods totaling $7m-odd in Department of Industry and Business and $10m-odd in Lands, Planning and Environment. Now, any competent person would look at those figures and would say the first thing you have to do is go back and look at whether the estimated spending in that period 2000-01 is above the budget and budget amount for that same period, and if it is not can you explain the difference.
Well, guess what, Mr Speaker? If you look at the budget amounts as printed at that time for 2000-01, $37.27m in Department of Industry and Business against $40.580m in this budget, and you can very easily see that there has actually been an increase in those amounts. But the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take the estimated actual expenditure for 2000-01 without accounting for whether or not there have been any additional advances into that budget over that period.
Just quickly, the Department of Industry and Business was advanced amounts in that period and they were amounts that you can never estimate in a budget. For example, there was $3m advanced to cover a shortfall that was advanced to the nominal insurer to cover a shortfall for HIH. There is $1.2m to cover the finalisation of the sale of the NT TAB. There is $0.8m to purchase poker machines in this transitional period in the change over to ownership to the venues, and so on and so on. We can go on all day and the same applies to Lands, Planning and Environment.
Now, all of that might sound a bit complex but the point is simply that the Leader of the Opposition is comparing apples against oranges. You cannot put it any simpler than that. As I said at the beginning, I am going to give the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt here today. I think it has nothing to do with the deceitfulness, nothing to do with that, it is just pure and utter incompetence.
The question you would have to ask yourself, and what Territorians should be asking themselves, is would you let this person anywhere near the purse strings of any agency let alone the entire Northern Territory government? I think not.
Can the minister responsible for these portfolios explain to this House whether this is so and if so, why? If it is not, what other explanation can there be for these changes?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It seems that Question Time this morning is turning into an education session for the opposition in regards to how a budget works and how you should read a budget. There has been much said this morning. Maybe in the next budget we should consider whether there should be an educational component put in there for that purpose because it is getting very tedious the way the opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, malign the budget
I will just go through the quote the member for Nightcliff was talking about. There was a lead-in straight after the Treasurer had been on the radio and then the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘I wish there were more good news stories in this budget because that’s what the Territory’s hanging out for basically’. The reporter, to his credit, said, ‘There is plenty of information though about increased funding for health, education and police all benefiting in the budget. There’s road works, so how can you not welcome these sorts of increases in funding?’. The member for Fannie Bay says, ‘Well, I certainly welcome increases in health, and I welcome increases in education. We will be taking a very close look at whether in fact they are increases per se or whether they are just keeping up with inflation. But take a quick look through the budget and you will see that money has been ripped off other very important areas for our future, like millions out of Lands, Planning and Environment, millions out of Industry and Business and so on’. The reporter said, ‘Well, where do you get that from?’. ‘Well, just take a look at Budget Paper No. 2, Paul, and you will see that in there, the allocations to various departments, that millions of dollars have been removed’.
Removed, Mr Speaker, from last year. Well ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: The Leader of the Opposition has priors for deceitfulness in this House.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member to withdraw.
A member: She used it herself a minute ago.
Mr SPEAKER: I know it is used here quite often across the Chamber, but for peace, let’s have it withdrawn.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw because of the respect I have for your office.
Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr BALDWIN: But if it is not that, then it has to be incompetence that leads to this accusation by the Leader of the Opposition. What she has obviously done is grab for any straw that she could when faced by a reasonably easy question from the reporter to cover herself in that she pretends to Territorians that she has some knowledge of what is really going on. We have seen it here again this morning - the Treasurer trying to explain to the Leader of the Opposition what this budget is all about and get some understanding in there, but it is not working.
Let me try to explain for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition. What she has done is looked at the 2000-01 estimated actual spending in Lands, Planning and Environment and Department of Industry and Business and the new 2001-02 budget amounts and noticed that there are variations downwards for those periods totaling $7m-odd in Department of Industry and Business and $10m-odd in Lands, Planning and Environment. Now, any competent person would look at those figures and would say the first thing you have to do is go back and look at whether the estimated spending in that period 2000-01 is above the budget and budget amount for that same period, and if it is not can you explain the difference.
Well, guess what, Mr Speaker? If you look at the budget amounts as printed at that time for 2000-01, $37.27m in Department of Industry and Business against $40.580m in this budget, and you can very easily see that there has actually been an increase in those amounts. But the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take the estimated actual expenditure for 2000-01 without accounting for whether or not there have been any additional advances into that budget over that period.
Just quickly, the Department of Industry and Business was advanced amounts in that period and they were amounts that you can never estimate in a budget. For example, there was $3m advanced to cover a shortfall that was advanced to the nominal insurer to cover a shortfall for HIH. There is $1.2m to cover the finalisation of the sale of the NT TAB. There is $0.8m to purchase poker machines in this transitional period in the change over to ownership to the venues, and so on and so on. We can go on all day and the same applies to Lands, Planning and Environment.
Now, all of that might sound a bit complex but the point is simply that the Leader of the Opposition is comparing apples against oranges. You cannot put it any simpler than that. As I said at the beginning, I am going to give the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt here today. I think it has nothing to do with the deceitfulness, nothing to do with that, it is just pure and utter incompetence.
The question you would have to ask yourself, and what Territorians should be asking themselves, is would you let this person anywhere near the purse strings of any agency let alone the entire Northern Territory government? I think not.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016