Page 2991 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But we get back to 1.8 and the word “deficit”. It is very important, because we are seeing some big ones, and it is worth touching on them. We said at the beginning that this budget is a fiscally irresponsible budget—as opposed, as I say, to even New South Wales and Eric Roozendaal, who has been able to deliver surpluses and tax cuts. Let us have a look at it.
Let us look at both the net operating balance and the underlying net operating balance, which has helpfully been provided. We have the net operating balance in 2010-11. It is minus $83.9 million. So there is an $83.9 million deficit—although in underlying terms that is $172.7 million. In 2011-12, there is a $135 million deficit—and in underlying terms $152 million. In 2012-13, $95 million—and $97.5 million—and in 2013-14, there is a deficit in both underlying and net terms of $50.3 million. These are large deficits that are being delivered by this ACT Labor government. Their fiscal irresponsibility is there for all to see. The figures do speak for themselves.
What we hear a lot from the Treasurer is excuses. We hear: “It is the GST; it is the GFC; it is not our fault; it is nothing we are actually doing; it has got nothing to do with our spending decisions; we are completely victims of external circumstances.” It was the GFC—and then, when things recovered, it was still the GFC, even though it is not.
We can look at the numbers. I know the Treasurer liked our charts in budget week. She liked our charts in budget week that showed the—
Ms Gallagher: That took about five seconds.
MR SESELJA: Well, the fact is it was another chart she could not refute. And the reason she could not refute it is that it was 100 per cent accurate. I will take her through the figures that put a lie to the claim that somehow they are suffering from this massive revenue deficit as a result of the GFC.
In 2008-09, the government was estimating that it would get $3.7 billion, roughly, in 2011-12. In the 2010-11 estimates—so, post-GFC—we see that the actual revenue estimate is $3.79 billion; that is up—$3.79 billion. But then we go on to—
Ms Gallagher: Go to the next year.
MR SESELJA: The next year gets a lot better, let me tell you. In 2009-10, the estimates for 2012-13 were $3.831 billion, and now the estimate—in 2010-11 for the 2012-13 financial year—is $4.025 billion. That is a big increase. That is a big difference. That is a massive windfall. Then, of course, in the outyear, we have crazy stuff: $4.234 billion. So we see the massive revenue increase. There is absolutely no justification for and no substance to the Treasurer’s claim. Yes, projections dropped for a year, but they were projections, and they have come back and they are actually better than what they were projecting before. So not only are they getting more money every year; they are getting more than they expected they would be getting now in the good times—so, before the GFC was thought of or known about, what they were projecting then. And we are actually expecting now that we will get more revenue than what they were expecting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video