The surplus that disappeared

Concerned and more confused. That was the response from Opposition Deputy Leader Teina Bishop, to comments made by Financial Secretary Sholan Ivaiti last week on local TV News in response to statements made by the Minister of Finance during the presentation of the Budget in July alluding to a surplus of $2.9m.
Bishop points out that statements by the Financial Secretary and the Minister for Finance are a mismatch. Neither appear to agree so which is correct?
Bishop said if in fact what the Financial Secretary said in his response was true, that is, that there was no surplus, then he was of the view that either the Secretary had misled the public or that the Minister of Finance had deliberately misled Parliament and the people of this country. Bishop said that this was indeed a very serious matter.
Bishop said it was his intention to pursue this matter further because the Opposition was firmly of the belief that its concerns raised during the introduction and subsequent debate on the Appropriation Bill were somewhat downplayed by government who were experiencing great difficulty balancing the budget towards the end of June and surprisingly, publicly announced they were returning a surplus of $2.9m compared to an estimated shortfall of $3.1m the previous year. This extraordinary turn of events said Bishop could only be deemed a “miracle” however in light of the Financial Secretary’s response; it portrayed a different story and one with serious implications if the Opposition’s concerns are correct.
Bishop recalled at the time raising this matter in Parliament asking the Minister of Finance to clarify how the surplus was arrived at. His response as quoted in the Parliamentary Hansard Report dated 24 July 2009 Page 9 states “The Budget that I am tabling today provides for a fiscal operating surplus of $2.9m in line with the requirements of s23 (2)a of the MFEM Act compared with an actual estimated shortfall of $3.1m in 2008 – 09 due primarily to actual revenues coming in lower than estimated showing the impact of the global financial crisis and lower collections of other crown revenues. As noted in the fiscal tables, this balance was automatically funded through reserve funds.”
Bishop said he could not understand then why the Financial Secretary would make such an errant statement suggesting there was no surplus when his own Minister had categorically stated in Parliament that there was. This slip of the tongue said Bishop, cannot go without further investigation because both the Minister and the Financial Secretary signed a Statement of Fiscal Responsibility to that effect and it was aired publicly.
“I’m pleased though that the Financial Secretary at least agreed with my statement that I was “technically correct” when raising the budget surplus issue but you see, I didn’t raise it,” said Bishop, “I challenged it because it was the Minister who made the announcement not me and I have never been totally satisfied that the figures presented during the debate were above board. He has confirmed my suspicion that something was not right and it is my intention to recommend this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee to investigate as to whether or, the Minister deliberately misled the House when presenting the Appropriation Amendment Bill in July of this year.”

Herald Issue 463 10 June
- World famous activist assisting residents
- Budget will decide if residents prosecute Government over landfill
- Forestry project sucking Mangaia dry
- Budget 2010 – fiasco or disaster?