Page 2389 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sought to adjust to the slowdown in economic activity. They have all acknowledged the slowdown in revenue flowing into their treasuries, especially as activity in the residential property sector moderates. As a consequence, they have been more focused in their spending priorities, and that includes situations where they have particular priorities, such as improving railway infrastructure in New South Wales and the need for Queensland to completely overhaul its child protection system.
The exception to these reasonable responses to the emerging economic situation is, of course, the ACT, where doctrinaire decision-making, the inability of the Treasurer to curb his high-spending cabinet colleagues and just plain stupidity have combined to leave our territory exposed. All other jurisdictions have sought to cut their cloth to fit these new circumstances.
I expect the Treasurer will be saying to himself that here is Mr Smyth talking about things that he just does not understand. That seems to be the stock standard answer. But unfortunately for our Treasurer, the reality is somewhat different, as it usually is when we debate these matters across the chamber.
What have all other jurisdictions in Australia done with their budgets as they looked ahead to 2005-06 and beyond? They have, without exception—and I repeat, without exception—budgeted for surpluses in 2005-06. To reinforce what other governments in Australia have done, let us consider the analysis of the numbers. New South Wales in their next year’s budget has a $303 million surplus; Victoria has a $365 million surplus; Queensland has a $934 million surplus; Western Australia has a $521 million surplus; South Australia has a $51 million surplus; Tasmania—yes even Tasmania, Mr Speaker—has a $29 million surplus; and even the Northern Territory has a surplus of $34 million. The federal government—being the national government, it is in a slightly different situation—is budgeting for a surplus of $7.4 billion for the 2005-06 financial year.
Every government in Australia except the ACT Stanhope government has acknowledged that prudence requires budget surpluses. But what is the ACT doing? It is budgeting for a deficit of $91 million in 2005-06. Perhaps this is some of that majestic outlook that the Chief Minister was talking of earlier, where you have actually got to go against the trends sometimes, you have to have a vision and you have to be out there selling it. Well, wrong vision, Chief Minister. The vision that you are selling is one of economic irresponsibility and imprudent management. What is the ACT doing, Mr Speaker? It is budgeting for a deficit of $91 million in 2005-06. What is more, the expectation is that this deficit will increase because of the influence of factors such as health spending, which has been underestimated in this budget.
How can the ACT be so out of step with other jurisdictions? I guess part of it is that the Treasurer is already in the departure lounge just waiting for the flight out of here to be called, because he cannot control his colleagues. I am told that about six weeks out from the delivery of the budget the deficit was as low as $40 million because the Treasurer had managed to exert some control. But the ministers got panicky and had to make more promises, so in the last six weeks in the lead-up to budget day, $91 million is the outcome.
How can the ACT budget for a deficit at a time when economic logic says that a surplus is required, and when each and every other jurisdiction in Australia has seen the need for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .