Page 1905 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Using the GFS regime, there was a deficit in four years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09. There is no way that the Chief Minister is correct in asserting that either there have been eight budgeted surpluses or that there have been eight surplus outcomes.
The Australian economy has shown good resilience following the global financial crisis as consumer and business confidence has returned, as financial institutions have gradually recommenced lending and as corporate activity such as mergers and takeover proposals have increased. Even though the Australian economy has recovered substantially from the global financial crisis, there is no room for complacency, and that is why this budget is such a disaster. This do-nothing approach from a do-nothing Treasurer leaves us exposed in the future, particularly when we know that the government continues to spend more than it earns.
I note that the Treasurer, although she tried, was not able to debunk any of the figures that the Liberal Party have tabled. That is the problem with this Treasurer; that is the problem with this party—we still have deficits and debts. We are going to have the potential of borrowing up to $450 million as a consequence of this budget. We are still being taxed higher than ever before, and this government is still spending more than ever, all at a time when it cannot for the next four years deliver a single surplus. That is not a good sign, and it all comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers—in particular, those that live in outlying areas and drive cars.
This is not a budget rooted in reality. If you have a growing family, a young family, living in the outer fringes of this city—whether it be Banks or Conder or Charnwood or Amaroo—if you, on your way to work, have to drop children at childcare or at school or if you drop your spouse or your partner at their workplace, and if you want to do some shopping on the way home and take school-age children to their various activities, whether it be sport or drama or music or whatever it is that they do, you cannot do that on an ACTION bus. You cannot do that when you are being taxed again by this government. They are putting their hands in people’s pockets for increased parking costs that are going up 30 per cent. It will be interesting to see the explanation of the fees—
Ms Gallagher: I take my children on the bus. They love it. When did you last catch a bus, Jeremy?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order, members! Conversations across the chamber are disorderly.
MR SMYTH: We are told as a consequence of the parking fees going up that the revenue raised will increase by 30 per cent. Yet the fee in Civic, for instance, will go from $9 to $10.50 a day. That is one-sixth, call it 16 per cent. Perhaps the minister can explain where the increases are by area. I am sure we will explore this when we get to the relevant minister in the estimates. Are there new areas being put in for parking, or are there bigger increases further afield? If there is a 30 per cent increase in the overall take and the supposed increase in an area like Civic, the most expensive area currently, is only one-sixth, then there is some interesting maths being done here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video