- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 6 March 2001
Treasury Funding
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 34 of 40
| Next Item »
Page: 12216
The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.46 p.m.]: For some time I have been considering releasing a monthly bulletin to the taxpayers of this State to keep them informed of the latest round of mathematical fumbling from the Treasurer. Events during the past month, especially the recent debate about petrol pricing, have confirmed the need for a monthly edition of Michael's mathematical muddles. The Treasurer has done his level best to debunk calls from the Prime Minister to match the 1.5¢ per litre cut in fuel excise announced by the Federal Governed late last week. The State Opposition called on the Treasurer to match that cut, a call that sent him into a tailspin. A quick check of Hansard from last Thursday confirmed my long-held suspicion that the Treasurer is innumerate. Commenting on the call to subsidise petrol at a State level by 1.5¢ the Treasurer said:
We do not have a petrol tax in New South Wales.
In that much he is correct, but the State Government receives $707 million in fuel tax payments from the Federal Government, $660 million of which goes into the Carr Government's coffers. The Opposition did not call for a cut in petrol taxes; we called for the Labor Government to match the Federal commitment. The Treasurer went on to state:
I assume therefore that what the Opposition is saying is that we should actually subsidise petrol in New South Wales. That is another $2 hundred million of promises from an Opposition …
If the Treasurer did his sums he would find that to match the Federal Government commitment the State Government would offer a 1.5¢ per litre subsidy, which would total $150 million. There is a fair difference between that figure and the $200 million he plucked from the air. Yesterday the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, said that the Carr Government could return 7.2¢ per litre to motorists, a total of $660 million. I wonder if the Treasure wants to dispute that figure as well? In answer to the same question on petrol pricing, the Treasurer said:
Early yesterday the Opposition committed itself to $1,350 million of additional spending in 24 hours. That works out at $1 million a minute. At that rate, within 12 months the Opposition will have committed itself to $510,000 million. At that rate, if it continues until the time of the next election, it will have committed itself to $1 million million worth of promises.
The real figures are worth looking at. The real figure quoted by the Opposition in relation to proposed fuel subsidies was $150 million, a figure that I pointed out to the Treasurer in the House that day. Just yesterday the Premier confirmed that an 8¢ per litre subsidy would cost the Government $8 hundred million. Working on the Premier's maths, a 1.5¢ per litre subsidy would equal $150 million. The Treasurer should do his sums as well as the Premier does his sums. The Treasurer claimed that the Opposition's promises totalled $1.35 billion, or $1 million per minute. If he wants to get technical, he should divide that $150 million and see what happens. It makes $104,000 per minute. The Treasurer has misplaced his decimal point—in fact, he has misplaced several decimal points.
Earlier this year I released a mock electricity bill that detailed losses in the industry under the Carr Labor Government to the tune of $1.108 billion. That figure resulted from a range of bungles in the industry, including a massive loss imposed on Pacific Power from long-term electricity contracts and a Supreme Court decision—which I will deal with in a moment. The Treasurer issued a media release stating that the figure was invented and said that the State's electricity businesses had returned dividends and tax equivalents of $650 million in 1999-2000. He went on to say that that was "close" to the $664 million result for 1998-99. He said that my figures were wrong and that my claim of a loss in dividends was incorrect, but then confirmed the downturn in his own press release. My figure for the difference in dividends was $14 million, which is exactly the figure that the Treasury used. Only this Treasurer could equate a downturn of $14 million with being "close". I have mentioned Pacific Power. The Supreme Court ordered that 11 disputed sale contracts with the Victorian distributor PowerCorp should be upheld. This means that Pacific Power will pay an estimated $650 million over the life of those contracts.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:38:17 : Update this page