1992-05-07 62:57
G.1.5
P. 02/06
06-MP-1992 22:38
SECRETARIAT PRESS OFFICE
+ 852 868 5212
F.02
TRANSCRIPT OF A MEDIA SESSION BY THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, MR. HAMISH MACLEOD AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET REVENUE BILLS ON MAY 6, 1992
FS: I just thought I'd come in here pretty quickly basically because obviously I'm very pleased to have the Budget, both the revenue and expenditure, now through. And clearly the rates situation
situation is of interest certainly when I presented the Budget, I never dreamt that we will have a further increase in the surplus for 91-92. It is a perhaps fortunate coincidence that the additional amount produced is roughly equivalent to what the rates increase would have produced over the period 96-97. And in those circumstances, I think it would not have been sensible for me to persist with the rates increase. If that had not
not happened, that had not emerged very recently, then I would have had to persist with the rates increase, in a few weeks time I suppose.
But anyway, that's what's happened. The other revenue measures are now all through. I repeated today I'm not modifying in any way the assurance I gave during the Budget debate that I intend to look positively in the next Budget at reviewing tax allowances and also the tax bands. And also as you know we have already begun the study under the Secretary for Planning, Envizsment and Lands on the problems of housing for the sandwich class, however defined. But certainly there are problems related to the price of housing. So all those will continue, that's not changed by what's happened today.
Q: Mr. Macleod, how can you get your figures so badly wrong.
You've given sone explanation, but something like the underspending of public works is not something which just suddenly happens. So how can this happen?
FS: NOW I haven't disguised the fact
fact that I'm not happy with the figures on public works being so...such an under-estimate. I think the revenue, yes, one can understand that
and in a bit more, percentage terms that's not huge. But expenditure on public works, we should be able to monitor better than we have been doing, and as I've said I have asked the two Secretaries concerned, that's Works and Treasury, to have a very serious look at how they can get that under control. It's partly a matter of getting the assessment right down at quite a low level of how far projects got and when the payments are going to be made. So it goes down through a rather large number of people who have to make judgements and we have to find some way of giving them an incentive to admit to the centre that they are behind and that they are not going to need all that money. So there maybe a matter of psychology here as much as anything else. We are going to look at that. We are not so worried about revenue, though even there it will be nice to be more accurate.
Q: But this isn't just a $6 billion extra, the original estimation for the surplus is $1.3 billion. So it's not just another additional $6 billion now. Doesn't this
this raise serious questions about the Government's ability to calculate its finances and the broader question of whether you
whether you got other figures right, such as for the airport?
Our
whether we can calculate. any one else's. It's a matter of
FS: Well, it's nothing to do with computers are just as good
good as