Page 1721 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let me go to what Mr Gentleman said. It is good to see that Mick has now read the budget. Last night at the Tuggeranong Community Council meeting, he was asked a question as to what the aquatic funding for his electorate was for. Unfortunately, he could not answer the question. It is good that you have read it now, Mick.
Mr Gentleman, we noticed also that you said last night that this actually was not a transformational budget. Mick’s take on it, Treasurer, was this. You might give him the speaking notes, because he obviously lost his copy. His take on it was: “It is just a steady as you go budget.” He thought that was an appropriate summary of your transformational budget—steady as you go.
What can we take out from Mr Gentleman’s comments? He said—and a number of them have said it: not all of them, but a couple of them—that it is a typical Labor budget. Yes, it is. It is a budget that is big on spending, big on borrowing and big on debt, with very few real pathways to sustainability. It is a typical Labor budget. It is full of adjectives, but there are few answers.
That is the problem for the people of Canberra. Mr Wall was there last night; Ms Lawder was there last night. Most of the people there were not impressed with the big borrowings and the fact that they end up paying for it. Not many people in Tuggeranong saw much in this budget for them. Indeed, a number were quite upset that key among the achievements of the government for Tuggeranong was different cells at the tip. And all the spending at the AMC is attributed solely as a benefit to Tuggeranong. A number of people were quite upset. That is what you get when you have to pad out your budget, when you have to pick and choose where you put things. That is the problem with this budget.
Mr Barr spoke about the endless possibilities, the brilliant possibilities. Again I am not sure where his brilliant possibilities and the transformational budget take us. It is interesting to note that the return of the budget to surplus is predicated on almost the same spending in 2015-16 as in 2014-15. Treasurer, that will be a task I look forward to you achieving with your colleagues in the ministry. There will be six ministers all baying for their fair cut of the budget.
This year, we see an increase in expenses of $272 million. Next year, 2015-16, it is only $36 million. In 2016-17 it is 176. In 2017-18 it is 172. That is five times the following year, and seven times what it is this year. Therein lies the problem. The Treasurer cannot deliver that with his colleagues and his own approach to the budget. This mysterious sudden increase is simply predicated on the fact that in one year their increase in spending over the estimates will be $36 million. They have never achieved it. It is hundreds of millions of dollars every year, year on year, but magically next year we will have restraint. And there you have it.
It is interesting to see the change in the rhetoric that we are getting now. Mr Barr yesterday actually blamed the Gillard government. He said that harder times began when the commonwealth started contracting their spending employment in our economy. That began in the last budget under the Gillard government. There you go. He went to on to say “not so much pushed, but responded to the impact of the budget 13 months ago, and it has been compounded”. Yes, it has been compounded this year. But at least one member is now standing up and telling the truth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video