Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 cover expenditures in addition to those outlined in the government’s 2006-07 budget. The additional expenditures entailed in both bills total around $2 billion, which is a net figure of savings measures outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007 the government seeks additional appropriations of $1.8 billion, with savings in the order of $464.2 million, leaving a net figure of $1.37 billion to be appropriated. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 there is an appropriation of some $637 million. As outlined in the minister’s second reading speech, these appropriations are designed to meet requirements that have arisen from the last budget.

I support the second reading amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Melbourne in this debate. When we look at these expenditures we see that they are not insubstantial and they call into question the government’s prowess in managing its budget. We have witnessed in this House year after year some chronic underspends by the government, enormous surpluses being generated that have not been accounted for at budget time and generally some expenditures that we on this side of the House take significant issue with. I refer to the blatant use of appropriations in the budget for advertising purposes, particularly in the lead-up to an election.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that I noticed in the Australian today. The report, headlined ‘Howard $1bn pledges shortfall’, goes into some excruciating detail of the chronic underspends that the government has been involved in since it came to power and more recently. The reporter goes through the 2004 election commitments and we see that the announced cost for the 100 per cent Medicare rebate was $1.7 billion. The actual cost was $1.67 billion. There was a difference of $43 million. When we go to some of the other figures we can see they are quite substantial. For the mature age worker tax offset, a $1.039 billion program ended up spending $1.42 billion. That was out by some $38 million. There was a commitment of $2 billion over five years for the Australian water fund. The actual cost was $601 million, with an underspend of $399 million. For the 30 per cent childcare rebate there was an underspend of $455 million. The tax break for entrepreneurs was costed at $1.25 billion but $948 million was spent. That is an underspend of $302 million.

I mention these figures because we find that the government is very long on promises and beats up the amount of money it is spending on various areas in its budget. But, when you drill down in estimates, you find that it either has not spent it or has chronically overspent it. It leads one to question why, with the amount of money flowing to the highest taxing government in Australia’s history, we do not have a better accounting record of those expenditures. I canvass the economic situation that the government claims has been responsible for the enormous revenues that have been generated to the Commonwealth over the past 10 years. I remind government members that it was Labor that left them the rolled-gold economy that they now claim credit for. It was the Labor Party that broke the back of Liberal inflation—

See this speech in context