Mr BURKE - 2002-08-20
Madam Speaker, I refer the Treasurer to Budget Paper No 2, page 80. Much has been said by yourself about the uniform presentation and format as a means to provide a basis for meaningful comparison of government’s financial results and projections. In that context, I am finding it difficult, firstly, to make a comparison with previous budgets - but I guess that will come out in the estimates process. With regard to figure 19 on page 80, can you advise this House why, under Health, as a meaningful comparison with the previous expenditure, that expenditure on Health has actually reduced by $5.376m from $432.696m to $427.320m? Does that reflect a blow-out in the departmental outcomes and the new figure is a reflection of the true budgetary allocation?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, certainly not. The figures that we provided this morning, with the increase of $20m going to Health and the estimates for the previous year, are absolutely accurate. What the Opposition Leader is not understanding is different accounting methods and, particularly in this budget, the difference between accrual and cash. The question from the member for Drysdale simply misunderstood that too. We are dealing with two accounting methods. There are different calculations involved and the totals are also different. The detail, referring to page …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: This is a serious issue. I am not saying it is easy. I am a Treasurer of one year and I have found coming to terms - and I would not pretend I have yet - with the difference between cash and accrual and the new presentation framework is difficult. Have no doubt about that, it is difficult.
Let me say, it is very important that we are moving to an accrual framework. It looks at our assets and our liabilities in a much more comprehensive way than simply a cash framework. Every other jurisdiction has moved this way, and it is important that we do. We know why the previous government was reluctant: they tried to avoid the fact that we had unfunded employee liabilities of $1.4bn - tried to avoid it and simply said: ‘We will not even consider it’. Under accrual accounting, it must be considered.
We are all going to have to learn to come to terms with it. Our agencies are doing so, and I am pleased to see that Treasury will have training for all of us to be able to come to terms with the difference between accrual and cash accounting. I want to commend Treasury, because these budget papers are the equivalent of doing two budgets. To do that in this time frame has been an extraordinary amount of work, and I congratulate Treasury for that.
If we go to page 19, the figure that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to …
Mr Burke: Page 80.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry, figure 19 on page 80 of Budget Paper No 2. The 2001-02 figure includes capital items for the fit-out of the Alice Springs Hospital. There you are: simple.
What we have done in this budget paper, and I take every one, while I am on my feet …
Mr Dunham: So it is less. Less fit-out money this year.
Ms MARTIN: It is an answer. Okay? It is an answer, and it explains it. But I say: compare this budget paper - this is now Budget Paper No 3, the agency budget papers. If you compare that with Budget Paper No 2 that we dealt with in the past, the major variations are explained, every time, against every agency. For this opposition: this book is explaining many of those variations, most of the ones with significant figures against them, and the detail in here is extraordinary. So this is budgeting Labor government style, it is budgeting fiscal integrity and transparency and style. I think you guys will be struggling, we have given you as much information as we can. We will give you the training programs, we will help you out on this. We will get you to learn to come to terms with cash and accrual, total government sector, public, non-financial, financial corporations, all those sectors will help you through it.
However, these figures, unlike the ones that we used to get from you, have been done by Treasury. Let me tell you, the bottom line is Treasury’s as well. Have confidence.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that further questions be placed on the Question Paper.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, certainly not. The figures that we provided this morning, with the increase of $20m going to Health and the estimates for the previous year, are absolutely accurate. What the Opposition Leader is not understanding is different accounting methods and, particularly in this budget, the difference between accrual and cash. The question from the member for Drysdale simply misunderstood that too. We are dealing with two accounting methods. There are different calculations involved and the totals are also different. The detail, referring to page …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: This is a serious issue. I am not saying it is easy. I am a Treasurer of one year and I have found coming to terms - and I would not pretend I have yet - with the difference between cash and accrual and the new presentation framework is difficult. Have no doubt about that, it is difficult.
Let me say, it is very important that we are moving to an accrual framework. It looks at our assets and our liabilities in a much more comprehensive way than simply a cash framework. Every other jurisdiction has moved this way, and it is important that we do. We know why the previous government was reluctant: they tried to avoid the fact that we had unfunded employee liabilities of $1.4bn - tried to avoid it and simply said: ‘We will not even consider it’. Under accrual accounting, it must be considered.
We are all going to have to learn to come to terms with it. Our agencies are doing so, and I am pleased to see that Treasury will have training for all of us to be able to come to terms with the difference between accrual and cash accounting. I want to commend Treasury, because these budget papers are the equivalent of doing two budgets. To do that in this time frame has been an extraordinary amount of work, and I congratulate Treasury for that.
If we go to page 19, the figure that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to …
Mr Burke: Page 80.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry, figure 19 on page 80 of Budget Paper No 2. The 2001-02 figure includes capital items for the fit-out of the Alice Springs Hospital. There you are: simple.
What we have done in this budget paper, and I take every one, while I am on my feet …
Mr Dunham: So it is less. Less fit-out money this year.
Ms MARTIN: It is an answer. Okay? It is an answer, and it explains it. But I say: compare this budget paper - this is now Budget Paper No 3, the agency budget papers. If you compare that with Budget Paper No 2 that we dealt with in the past, the major variations are explained, every time, against every agency. For this opposition: this book is explaining many of those variations, most of the ones with significant figures against them, and the detail in here is extraordinary. So this is budgeting Labor government style, it is budgeting fiscal integrity and transparency and style. I think you guys will be struggling, we have given you as much information as we can. We will give you the training programs, we will help you out on this. We will get you to learn to come to terms with cash and accrual, total government sector, public, non-financial, financial corporations, all those sectors will help you through it.
However, these figures, unlike the ones that we used to get from you, have been done by Treasury. Let me tell you, the bottom line is Treasury’s as well. Have confidence.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that further questions be placed on the Question Paper.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016