Dr BURNS - 2001-10-24
In the 2001-02 budget brought down by the CLP government in May this year, $9m was tagged as revenue that the government would receive from the sale of government land. Will this be achieved and how is this figure arrived at?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his question. Yes, it is true $9m was tagged as the revenue the government would receive from the sale of land. Unfortunately, this figure will not be achieved this year. I have been advised by my department that they provided the more realistic figure of $3m. That leaves a shortfall of $6m. This did not happen only this financial year, it happened last financial year. In 2000-01, a figure of $10m was tagged. In effect, it was $4.2m, another $5m shortfall …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, I cannot hear your minister because of the interjections you are making. A little silence, and allow the minister to have a go.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, this is something that is repeated year after year, this year and last year. Now, that could be unintentional. If it was unintentional, that indicates the lack of any fiscal knowledge by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine. If it was intentional, it is clear dishonesty.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Johnston for his question. Yes, it is true $9m was tagged as the revenue the government would receive from the sale of land. Unfortunately, this figure will not be achieved this year. I have been advised by my department that they provided the more realistic figure of $3m. That leaves a shortfall of $6m. This did not happen only this financial year, it happened last financial year. In 2000-01, a figure of $10m was tagged. In effect, it was $4.2m, another $5m shortfall …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, I cannot hear your minister because of the interjections you are making. A little silence, and allow the minister to have a go.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, this is something that is repeated year after year, this year and last year. Now, that could be unintentional. If it was unintentional, that indicates the lack of any fiscal knowledge by the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine. If it was intentional, it is clear dishonesty.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016