Page 148 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(1) cannot control the spending of his ministers and (2) really does not have an answer to return the budget to surplus. It just keeps slipping away. It is always just on the horizon. It is always just one more year. That does not help the families of the ACT.
Indeed, if members go to page 22 of the midyear review, it is interesting that the expected expenses from the 2015-16 budget, which is yet to appear, to the election year budget, the 2016-17 budget, only go up by $23.5 million—$23 million growth in expenditure in a single year. The actual outcome for 2013-14 was $4.5 billion. The original budget for 2014-15 was $4.8 billion. Of course, with Mr Fluffy it has gone to $5.3 billion; in 2015-16 it is expected to be $5 billion; and then, it is interesting, in the 2015 budget it is $5.0543 billion. But in 2016-17 it only goes to $5.078 billion, an increase of some $23.5 million. If the Treasurer and Chief Minister achieves that, it will be a miracle. Of course, that is the basis for them getting into surplus.
It is interesting that in the 2016-17 budget it goes from $5.078 billion to $5.241 billion. What is that, about $150 million? But the Treasurer wants us to believe that, particularly in an election year, the increase in expenses will simply be $23 million. If he achieved that it would—I did not check, but I should go back and check—probably be the smallest increase in expenses in the history of the territory. I would suggest that it is fairy floss. It is a delusion and that is why the surplus keeps slipping away. You know the Treasurer is in trouble, the Chief Minister is in trouble, when he starts going the names. He has now invented financial Darwinism, fiscal Darwinism, and tiny accountants’ minds. Good on you. They are good debating points, but it is not going to fix your problem.
He poses the question of alternative policy. Let us put alternative policies. As you would know, Madam Speaker, in 2006 I said we should have a new convention centre. The entire business community agrees with the concept of a new convention centre and there is a document from the then Canberra Business Council with 54 different organisations saying the number one priority is a new convention centre. We saw on Monday the release of the EY report Australia Forum—and its potential economic benefits from the now Canberra Business Chamber. It says that it will increase activity by $1.6 billion over 20 years. During construction, it will create 3,000 jobs; when operating it will create 1,400 jobs.
You want some savings? Get rid of capital metro. What were the additional jobs in capital metro in the first stage? What was it? Fifty-four jobs, 54 operating jobs. Fifty-four jobs versus 1,400 jobs. If you are serious about—
Mr Gentleman: It is 1,000 jobs.
MR SMYTH: So it is 1,000 jobs? Mr Gentleman interrupts that it is 1,000 jobs that will come from capital metro.
Mr Gentleman: 50,000 over its period of life.
MR SMYTH: Sorry, how many?
Mr Gentleman: 50,000 over its period of life.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video