Page 2476 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 6 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is every year. That is $100 million over the forward estimates, leaving the territory with a $768 million cumulative deficit across the forward estimates. So, according to the Treasurer, that is $100 million in cumulative deficit, and he said it is a very minor and modest difference. That is what the Treasurer thinks: it is moderate; it is minor; we do not need to worry about it, $100 million; do not worry about it.
But let us put that in context, that $25 million a year. That is 260 classroom teachers. Is that what we are going to lose? Is that the plan? Or it is 189 firefighters. It is 233 nurses or 192 police or, if the government decides that, rather than cutting, it will increase taxes further, that is $192 for every household every year. And that is what the Treasurer thinks is modest and minor, and he is saying to us, “Yes, you can debate this budget without knowing the impact of that.”
I quote again from the report:
The Committee notes that the determination by the ICRC on water and sewerage pricing has implications for the budget bottom-line that are yet to be fully analysed and understood.
It views the situation with concern, in particular due to the fact that the Assembly will, as things stand, be obliged to vote on an Appropriation Bill that is not fully costed.
As a consequence, the committee found as a recommendation:
… that the Appropriation Bill not be brought on until such time as the Treasurer has presented an amended bill and relevant budget documents detailing the effect of the ICRC determination on the ACTEW Water dividend and balance sheet.
And I expect the Treasurer to heed the recommendations of the estimates committee.
Madam Speaker, through you, to the Treasurer, this report, which is the findings of the committee, is very clear. And it says that this budget should not be debated until we know the full impact of the ACTEW dividend, $100 million. Andrew Barr does not think that is substantive. But if it is going to be $192 a year on every family, if that is the way you are going to do it, or whether you are going to cut 260 teachers, we need to know that. And this place should not be expected to debate a budget with such a hole in it.
Secondly, it is very clear from this report and our hearings that the government can do two things: it should either freeze its implementation of the tax reform until we know what the implication is or, as we have called for repeatedly, present the modelling. Show us how long it is going to take for rates to triple. Based on what is in this budget, it is 11 years. Prove it is not true. And we should not be expected to be voting on tax reform, voting on what is contained in this budget, without knowing what the full implications are, because what is contained in this budget is entirely contradictory to the Treasurer’s statement and the Chief Minister’s statements that rates will not be tripling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video