News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Four ways Abbott got the sums wrong 

Four ways Abbott got the sums wrong

03 Sep, 2010 03:34 AM
THE COALITION made four kinds of mistakes in its costings according to the Treasury; the understandable, the inexcusable, the inexplicable, and those resulting from a failure to comprehend the nature of the process.

Although concealed from the public at the time of the vote, the decision of Andrew Wilkie to go with Labor on the basis of the costings suggests they have come at a price.

The inexcusable: According to Treasury the Coalition counted the interest to be saved on debt from selling Medibank Private, but not the dividends it would lose as a result of the sale. It is a bit like deciding to sell a rental property without noticing you will no longer be able to collect the rent.

Also inexcusable was double-counting savings to be made by increasing the efficiency dividend, effectively double-counting savings already factored into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This means measuring the wrong time period when calculating money to be made from the parental leave levy, and failing to update its savings from abandoning the National Broadband Network to reflect the smaller amount actually spent. All up they are worth $2.7 billion.

The inexplicable: The Coalition announced spending from the Health and Hospitals Fund, the Education Investment Fund, the Building Australia Fund and the Nation Building Fund without apparently checking that there was enough free money in the funds. Treasury and Finance have examined what had already been allocated and found that adding on the Coalition's promises would more than empty the funds, pushing them $3.3 billion into the red. The departments acknowledge that it may be possible to cancel or defer projects to make room for the $3.3 billion but says the Coalition provided no such details.

The nature of the process: The Charter of Budget Honesty sets out guidelines for election costings, in order to make sure they are done on the same basis. One forbids the counting of proceeds from expected ''second-round effects'' such as a saving on the dole from a job creation program. The Coalition counted such an effect because it says the National Centre for Economic Modelling told it its program would take 51,000 people off the dole. (NATSEM said yesterday it had in fact had no communication with the Coalition and would have only worked for it indirectly as part of a contract with the Parliamentary Library.) It is the same with the accounting measure known as the Conservative Bias Allowance. Under the rules, changing it does not change a thing. The Treasury says such an adjustment would not create ''actual budgetary savings''. All up these are worth $3.5 billion.

And the understandable: The Coalition used an interest rate of 5.5 per cent in calculating savings on debt repayments. Treasury says it should have used 4.9 per cent, the same as was used in the pre-election outlook. But Treasury never actually included the figure in the outlook. Without a lot of digging the Coalition would not have found it out.

Unless perhaps it took Treasury into its confidence early, as it might now believe it should have.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
What could you expect from a buffoon who represents all those rich book cookers!
Posted by tigerdicky, 3/09/2010 7:15:18 AM
I thought we had put behind us the sneaky ways of the Liberals with the departure of John Howard. It looks like it is their DNA! They couldn't be honest during the campaign and they want us to believe that they will be honest as the government! If they had "done the right thing" and given their costings to Treasury before polling day, we wouldn't have the current "hung" vote we do have. Voters would have been made aware of the dishonesty.
Posted by Gecko, 3/09/2010 8:31:25 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Counting the costs ... Tony Abbott's response on costings was to assert Treasury was wrong due to differences of opinion. Photo: Glen McCurtayne
Counting the costs ... Tony Abbott's response on costings was to assert Treasury was wrong due to "differences of opinion". Photo: Glen McCurtayne
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
02 September, 2010
POLL
Q: Are the current record lamb prices sustainable for the industry in the long term?

Yes
(37.2%)

No
(49.9%)

Unsure
(13%)

Total Votes: 401
Poll Date: 29 August, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...