Page 3033 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As much as the Labor Party can pretend that this is simply a Liberal Party critique, this is a cross-party critique which represents the views of the Liberal Party and the Greens in relation to this budget, and it does call into question the Greens’ attitude to this budget in particular.
We have debts and deficits as far as the eye can see, Mr Speaker. The territory’s headline operating balance deteriorates further to deficits of $135 million in 2009-10, $159 million in 2010-11, $211 million in 2011-12 and $205 million in 2012-13. Because of all the massive numbers that we have been hearing about in recent times in the global context, I think we can become a bit immune to the size of these numbers. But when we are talking about a territory which will have a budget at this time of around about $4 billion annually, racking up deficits cumulative of over $700 million represents a significant risk to the ACT going forward. It represents a significant risk for the ability of future governments to be able to deliver on the services that are required for the people of the ACT.
These are the numbers that the Treasurer is comfortable with: $135 million in 2009-10, $159 million in 2010-11, $211 million in 2011-12 and $205 million in 2012-13. It is worth reflecting on what that actually does. In terms of interest payments on the debt, the $550 million is just the debt over the next few years that we know about. That is roughly $25 million a year in interest repayments. Now $25 million a year in interest repayments is about the cost of the new department of environment. That is what we are faced with each and every year under this government’s plan. Each and every year we will be saddled with at least $25 million of interest repayments simply to service the debt. That is just the debt we know about now. (Second speaking period taken.)
Ms Gallagher: I thought you were not even speaking on this.
MR SESELJA: Ms Gallagher said that she thought I was not speaking on it. I do not quite know where she got that idea.
Ms Gallagher: You shook your head at me and said that Alistair was going to speak.
MR SESELJA: I was going to speak after Alistair Coe. I apologise if it has thrown Ms Gallagher into confusion that I have spoken before Mr Coe. If it is okay with Ms Gallagher, we did make a slight change and I hope that that has not sort of thrown her plans into disarray in responding to all of this.
These are the kind of deficits we will have. Of course, the plan essentially consists of this: in the first year, do nothing. The first-year response to the global financial crisis from Katy is to do nothing. You do get the sense that this budget had a little bit more to do with a smooth path for a new Treasurer who may pass it on to another Treasurer than with actual economic responsibility. It actually had more to do with ensuring that Katy Gallagher did not have to be the bearer of bad news in any way, shape or form.
So the first part is to do nothing. That is the beginning of the plan. Then the second part is to hope that revenue comes back. Of course, the important point to make, and this I think is something that the government has tried certainly to skate over, is that we actually do see revenue increasing significantly. That is the projection that we have been given: revenue to increase significantly in the outyears.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .