Page 2999 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is a measured and responsible budget. It invests in key services—those core government services that the opposition are always asking us to invest in, except when it comes to budget debates when they all ask us to wind back. It has a new policy spend of $23 million a year and growth in the order of $42 million. There is $238.2 million over four years offset by a small and modest growth in some revenue initiatives. When you look at the large part of the new spend in this budget, you see that it is related to growth in our departments, it is related to growth in human services, it is related to growth in health and it is related to the growth of our city in terms of land release, infrastructure demands and creating additional bus services. They are all things I have not heard the opposition opposing, even though they try to oppose the budget in its entirety. Obviously they agree with some of the spending in this budget, but they do not actually want to see any spending; they want to see smaller budget deficits.
The budget has been endorsed by a number of independent analysts now. We have got ACIL Tasman supporting the fact that our balance sheet is strong and that it can withstand small periods of deficit budgeting. We have got Standard & Poor’s coming out and saying that the ACT government’s budget and balance sheet remain one of the strongest in the country. The AAA credit rating is endorsed and, if we continue on this path, there is absolutely no question that our AAA credit rating would be put in any jeopardy. That is what Standard & Poor’s are saying, so I think I will accept Standard & Poor’s interim assessment on the sustainability of the budget—I meet them in the next couple of weeks to go through the budget in more detail—as opposed to the political campaigning from the Liberal opposition.
This budget includes quite significant savings from government, and this is going to be a challenge for our departments to find. They have found the savings that we asked of them last year, and we thank them for working cooperatively with us. We have a further efficiency dividend imposed in this budget. We have sought to reduce the Treasurer’s advance and exert discipline in that area.
Mr Seselja: I thought that wasn’t a genuine saving.
MS GALLAGHER: It is not a saving when you halve it, then spend it all on your little election commitments. It is actually a genuine saving when you reduce it and do not spend that money.
Mr Seselja: I didn’t spend it.
MS GALLAGHER: You did spend it; you spent it to pay for your outrageous election commitments. You did not spend it in the end because the Canberra people saw sense and did not elect you. The proposal was to reduce it by 50 per cent and then use it to pay for your election commitments. That is not what we are doing. We are reducing the amount of the Treasurer’s advance and we are not spending it; we are returning it to the budget. I am sure Mr Smyth has poured over the end-of-year Treasurer’s advance figures. He will have seen the discipline that has been exerted this year. We have returned to the budget more than the $9.6 million we will be seeking next year in the reduction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video