Page 1590 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As much as that is a difficult conversation for politicians to have, I think it is going to be a conversation that this community needs to confront over the next 18 months to two years. With our population growing as fast as it is—and it is growing faster than I think anyone had predicted; our population is now over 360,000—and with the level of services that we are currently providing, we cannot continue to do that without looking at our revenue base.
That is precisely why I commissioned a tax review. I will be very interested to see whether the Liberal Party participate in that review and provide a submission about their ideas, and whether there is a mature conversation on the tax review by members of this place about how we actually provide services. It is not about the next two, three or four years. We will be fine. Our balance sheet is strong. Our cash reserves are strong.
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MS GALLAGHER: We have a very good budget, Mr Smyth, as much as it probably pains you to acknowledge it. Standard & Poor’s, in their latest report, have acknowledged the strength of our budget. And I do not discount that that has had at least a little bit to do with every government that has been in this place, including your own; everyone has contributed to the strength of the ACT’s balance sheet. I do not deny that. But Standard & Poor’s have also acknowledged that it has been the government’s financial management—that is recent financial management—that has ensured that the balance sheet remains strong and that our outlook for the future is stable.
That is what Standard & Poor’s are saying. When we look at the tax review and opportunities into the future, it is for the longer term. It is going to be for times when none of us are in this place. But I do not think it is a discussion that we can avoid, either. It is one that we need to have. It needs to be mature and it needs to acknowledge the pressures that governments are facing.
At the meeting this morning with treasurers, we went around the table and all of them were talking about the pressures that their budgets are under. The WA Treasurer spoke at length about the pressures they are under to provide infrastructure, how much they are borrowing to deliver that and when they are going to reach capacity on that front. It was the same for the New South Wales Treasurer and for the Queensland Treasurer. Everyone had the same story: demand is growing, health needs are growing, infrastructure needs are growing and the revenues were not necessarily growing at the same pace that demands for services were.
I am not sure it is a Labor versus Liberal debate, and I think it probably demeans it to have it as a Labor versus Liberal debate. It is a debate about whether or not your community is prepared to pay for the level of services that they demand. It is also an acknowledgment that there are always efficiencies in government that need to be found—that waste needs to be minimised and efficiencies need to be found. I agree with all of that, and that is something that we have had as part of our budget. But I would also acknowledge that whenever we have put in efficiency measures, it is often
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video