Ms SCRYMGOUR - 2001-10-23
In delivering the 2000-01 budget, the former Treasurer described it as an action budget and responsible. He promised to close the gap between revenue and expenditure significantly. Did he deliver?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The budget deficit was $140m, and that was $95m worse than was budgeted for. In contrast to the rhetoric that we heard from the then Treasurer, and still runs in his fantasy world, the Auditor-General has described the budget as unreliable. I refer the opposition to page 16 of the August report from the Auditor-General. I refer the opposition to the words used by the Auditor-General:
The government’s ability to transfer significant amounts in or out of its budget scope highlights that the budget scope
is unreliable as a measure of the government’s fiscal stewardship and accountability’
Strike one, the Auditor-General says ‘unreliable budget’.
The Under Treasurer described the budget situation as unsustainable. I would say, if the new Treasurer had the description given by Treasury as ‘unsustainable’ of the budget, I would bet that that same description was given to the then Treasurer. Did he make it public? No, Madam Speaker. Yet again, ‘unsustainable’ was the word used by Professor Percy Allan in his assessment of where the budget papers were at. So we have from the Auditor-General, ‘unreliable’; we have from Treasury, ‘unsustainable’ for the budget; and we have from one of Australia’s leading experts, Percy Allan - a man with impeccable credentials when it comes to budgets - saying also the budget position for the Territory is ‘unsustainable’.
The member for Katherine is the man who described this same budget in his 2000-01 budget speech as an ‘action budget’. He opened his words with: ‘This is an action budget’. We know what kind of action it had. It was a running-the-deficit-up action. Let’s look at some of the other words that were used. ‘It is a budget,’ said the then Treasurer, ‘that builds on the sound economic management of this government’. Sound economic management! And: ‘This government has struck a responsible balance between revenue measures and asset spending’. A responsible balance that gives us a deficit of $140m.
I do not know where the then Treasurer gets his vision of what fiscal management is about, but he repeated the same kind of words in the next budget speech. It is like fiction, it is like fantasy. The budget speech started in May saying: ‘The budget is economically responsible and fiscally sustainable’. ‘Fiscally sustainable’, was our Treasurer then saying in May, and within a blink, a matter of weeks really, the Under Treasurer was saying: ‘It is unsustainable’. So, can you believe a word that this man has said as Treasurer when the figures, when they come out, are so patently contradictory of what was said?
The member for Katherine’s budgets were unreliable. That is what the Auditor-General says. They were unsustainable. That is what his own Treasury says, that is what Percy Allen says. And the bottom line for Territorians is they were unbelievable.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The budget deficit was $140m, and that was $95m worse than was budgeted for. In contrast to the rhetoric that we heard from the then Treasurer, and still runs in his fantasy world, the Auditor-General has described the budget as unreliable. I refer the opposition to page 16 of the August report from the Auditor-General. I refer the opposition to the words used by the Auditor-General:
The government’s ability to transfer significant amounts in or out of its budget scope highlights that the budget scope
is unreliable as a measure of the government’s fiscal stewardship and accountability’
Strike one, the Auditor-General says ‘unreliable budget’.
The Under Treasurer described the budget situation as unsustainable. I would say, if the new Treasurer had the description given by Treasury as ‘unsustainable’ of the budget, I would bet that that same description was given to the then Treasurer. Did he make it public? No, Madam Speaker. Yet again, ‘unsustainable’ was the word used by Professor Percy Allan in his assessment of where the budget papers were at. So we have from the Auditor-General, ‘unreliable’; we have from Treasury, ‘unsustainable’ for the budget; and we have from one of Australia’s leading experts, Percy Allan - a man with impeccable credentials when it comes to budgets - saying also the budget position for the Territory is ‘unsustainable’.
The member for Katherine is the man who described this same budget in his 2000-01 budget speech as an ‘action budget’. He opened his words with: ‘This is an action budget’. We know what kind of action it had. It was a running-the-deficit-up action. Let’s look at some of the other words that were used. ‘It is a budget,’ said the then Treasurer, ‘that builds on the sound economic management of this government’. Sound economic management! And: ‘This government has struck a responsible balance between revenue measures and asset spending’. A responsible balance that gives us a deficit of $140m.
I do not know where the then Treasurer gets his vision of what fiscal management is about, but he repeated the same kind of words in the next budget speech. It is like fiction, it is like fantasy. The budget speech started in May saying: ‘The budget is economically responsible and fiscally sustainable’. ‘Fiscally sustainable’, was our Treasurer then saying in May, and within a blink, a matter of weeks really, the Under Treasurer was saying: ‘It is unsustainable’. So, can you believe a word that this man has said as Treasurer when the figures, when they come out, are so patently contradictory of what was said?
The member for Katherine’s budgets were unreliable. That is what the Auditor-General says. They were unsustainable. That is what his own Treasury says, that is what Percy Allen says. And the bottom line for Territorians is they were unbelievable.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016