|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.30 a.m.]: In speaking to the budget I encourage the Government to allow the House to debate the budget in greater proximity to its delivery. It is a long time since the budget was delivered and there has been limited opportunity for all members of this House to speak to it. My expectation is that once a budget is delivered every member of this House has an opportunity to respond within a week, given the importance of the document. Certainly, this budget document raises all sorts of questions. I am delighted to see in the gallery James Griffin, who is not only a true Manly local but also someone who worked very hard in my campaign to win the seat. He is passionate about the issues that I am passionate about. It is great to have a soul mate and someone who did such an incredible job for me in the gallery to hear about the budget.
The budget is not an honest account of the New South Wales economy and its finances, and Eric Roozendaal knows it. He really should hang his head in shame at the document that was produced on the day. The document lacks any credibility in its forecasts. It paints a rosy picture with a happy ending, almost like every fairytale does, with the State miraculously returning to a surplus after being in the red. We are significantly in the red, and I will talk about that in detail.
There is a new player, a new character, in the budget this year. I refer to the fairy godmother, otherwise known as Kevin Rudd. He is paying for the provision of infrastructure for which Eric Roozendaal, day in and day out, takes credit, as does Nathan Rees. The Rudd money is disguising an underlying deficit of large proportions in this State. The Rees Government says it is doing everything it can about jobs and infrastructure. However, the truth is that when you take away the drapes, as in the Wizard of Oz, and pull the budget apart, it is clear Kevin Rudd is doing something to build infrastructure in this State and Nathan Rees and Eric Roozendaal are doing nothing. Those are the facts of the budget. If we take away the advertising campaign—
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Tell that to the students whose schools have got improved toilets.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: The truth of the matter hurts members on the other side. That is the responsibility of the Rees Government, and the Government's response to the global crisis amounts to nothing. That is what the people of New South Wales need to know. The Government has done absolutely nothing. When we hear Eric Roozendaal suddenly starting to talk about the green shoots of recovery—I am sick of hearing him say those words—he is trying to take credit for the global turnaround. The truth is very different. Confidence in this State is at record lows. People are angry and frustrated at the lack of services in health and public transport. Our unemployment rate is still among the highest in the country. We may just have improved to be the second highest but for four or five years we have been at the top of the unemployment rate in this country. That is not acceptable.
Even in relation to the cornerstone of the budget, the Housing Construction Acceleration Plan, we heard all about what the contribution was meant to be, but the figures the Government released a couple of weeks ago show that it delivered $2.8 million in stimulus money. That is the Government's contribution, and the projections show that all it will provide is about $10 million. When Nathan Rees and Eric Roozendaal talk about their stimulus plan, that is it.
Let us look at some of the detail. If we take out the Federal Government's contribution to infrastructure and projects that were announced before the global financial crisis came to these shores, Nathan Rees and Eric Roozendaal will contribute nothing in 2009-10 to increased infrastructure spending. In 2010-11 Nathan Rees and Eric Roozendaal will deliver nothing in relation to increased infrastructure spending. In 2011-12 Nathan Rees and Eric Roozendaal will deliver nothing in relation to increased infrastructure spending. In terms of infrastructure that has been announced and that the Government is trying to deliver in the existing budget, there is underspending of $188 million on current projects.
Despite the ongoing claims from Eric Roozendaal and Nathan Rees that they are doing everything possible to deliver economic stimulus to this State, in terms of a policy response to the global financial crisis—let us not forget a number of projects were announced well before the crisis—they have delivered nothing. In fact, it is less than nothing because they have underspent on the infrastructure to which they were committed. Based on their track record of infrastructure spending commitments, even the new infrastructure that has been announced will not be delivered. There are certainly doubts about the CBD Metro because there is significant reliance on private funding for that project. Whatever project is announced is rarely delivered in this State, so even that project remains under a huge cloud.
Not a single public transport project is currently on time or on budget. As Heather Ridout, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said, "Business needs a stable and productive government and this Government is shambolic and completely lacks credibility." Without Kevin Rudd's funding, the contribution from Eric Roozendaal and Nathan Rees amounts to a couple of million dollars. When one realises that they spent $2 million promoting the budget through advertising, the net position is almost zero. Eric Roozendaal and Nathan Rees need to be truthful about this. They need to understand that despite the small upward ticks in economic indicators—they claim to have been the architects of the turnaround in the State's fortunes—we still have the lowest level of business confidence in the country and the second highest unemployment rate. The Government is not doing enough and confidence remains low. To take credit for a slight turnaround in economic conditions across the State is false and misleading.
When we look at some of the other tenets of the budget we see the way this Government approaches the State's finances. We need to think not only about provision of money for today but also about planning for problems and crises that could come tomorrow. Were we prepared for the global financial crisis? I have spoken about the unfunded superannuation liabilities a number of times in this House. They show that this Government was not prepared. It does not plan. According to the budget figures, those liabilities have grown to nearly $34 billion. We hear a lot of complaints from the other side of the House about John Howard and what his Government did, but Peter Costello saw the problem coming. Many years ago he established the Future Fund, which is now in a position that extinguishes the unfunded superannuation liability at a Federal level.
What is the balance of the future fund in this State? It will not surprise the House to hear that it sits at zero. The $34 billion unfunded liability limits the capacity of this State to borrow and limits the capacity to put money into infrastructure, health and public transport. If we had been prepared and had allocated money in each budget not only for today but also for tomorrow, that liability would not exist and we could still borrow sensibly, with our triple-A rating, and not face this huge burden. I acknowledge there has been a turnaround in the markets and that that unfunded superannuation obligation will reduce, but the problem remains and will continue to exist for the next 30 or 40 years. The onus is on every State Treasurer to deal with that problem immediately.
The way in which the Government dealt with this problem in its 2009-10 budget was deceitful. No additional contributions were made to deal with that problem in the hope—on a wing and a prayer—that things would turn around. That problem was ignored. The findings of the triennial review were delayed and will be released later in the year after the presentation of the budget. If that review had been released before the budget was presented many billions of dollars would have had to be put into the budget over the forward estimates period, which would have resulted in a much larger deficit. Rather than dealing with the problem, the Government pushed it away in the hope that things would turn around. When that report is released at the end of the year we will determine what contributions Treasurer Eric Roozendaal will make to ensure that future generations of people in New South Wales do not have that burden around their necks.
Our level of debt continues to increase. At present New South Wales Government borrowing per household is estimated to increase by 300 per cent, which reveals a clear pattern. The last years of the Keating Government and the first years of the Rudd Government created a grand canyon of debt. I am not suggesting that we should not have debt. Sensible debt makes sense, but when debt is spiralling out of control and no plan is implemented to reduce it or to bring it back to a reasonable level, there is reason for concern.
By 2012 every household in New South Wales will have $36,330 in total State debt and liabilities. The level of debt in this State continues to rise. The question I ask the Treasurer is: Will this debt continue to rise at the rate that it is rising as we lead into the 2011 election? If there were a plan to reduce State debt we would be on the way to understanding it. At present we are heading willy-nilly into debt without any credible plan to reduce it.
The unemployment rate in New South Wales—an issue to which I have referred before in this House—has been above the national unemployment rate since late 2005. Unemployment forecasts lack credibility as New South Wales has been well above the national average since September 2005. Miraculously, the forecasts in this budget show that New South Wales is under the national average. Whatever way we look at it, since Nathan Rees has been Premier, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs and this Government has not done enough about it.
The Rees Government should have adopted the Liberal-Nationals plan to reduce payroll tax for businesses in this State for 12 months, as was advocated in the national media and as was done in Western Australia. People in New South Wales have a culture of accepting and are happy to accept second best. If the Government had cut payroll tax in this State the unemployment rate might be 5½ per cent and tens of thousands of people might have retained their jobs. We understand the pressures that businesses are under, which is why we advocated our plan.
Government members often complain about the Opposition's lack of policies, but this is one policy that the Government should have implemented. This State is worse off as a result of the Government not implementing our policy. I condemn the Treasurer for pretending to be doing something about payroll tax when he is not. The Treasurer is now claiming as his payroll tax cuts that were announced many years ago. The truth is that the Treasurer has not done enough. The bottom line is that this budget remains in deep deficit. If we take out Kevin Rudd's money, over the forward estimates period we have an underlying deficit of $8 billion. The current budget deficit is $4.3 billion—an issue about which everyone in New South Wales should be concerned as it indicates that this Government has lost control of its budget and it has lost control of its ability to deliver desperately needed surpluses.
I will touch briefly on the Victorian budget to show how it compares with the New South Wales budget. Victoria's budget remains in surplus. Despite the economic downturn the Victorian Government produced a surplus. When the New South Wales budget is compared to the Victorian budget we find that New South Wales has significantly underperformed. Optimistic forecasts in this State should be compared to the performance of the Victorian Government, which for a considerable period has achieved controlled delivery of services. I acknowledge that the Victorian budget was produced under challenging economic times, but the Victorian Government was able to align revenue expenses.
We have heard a lot from Government members about living within our means—something that every household in New South Wales tries to achieve every day. Victorians live within their means but the Government in that State has managed to build for the future and to deliver improved services. In comparison, New South Wales is $8 billion in deficit, excluding Kevin Rudd's money, and at the same time our expenses and revenue remain completely out of whack. That is evident in last year's mini-budget. People in New South Wales are concerned about the deficit and how this Government will get us out of it. Our ability to get out of this deficit depends on the ability of the Rees Government to control expenses. However, history tells a different story. The mini-budget that was brought down nine months ago forecast expense growth at 5 per cent. Seven months later actual growth was at 8 per cent. For the past three years expenses have grown by an average of 7.3 per cent.
Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
|
