|
Debate resumed from 24 September 2009.
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.22 p.m.]: I resume my contribution to debate on the 2009-10 budget. We have reached the end of October and every member of this House has not yet formally responded to the budget. I will be arguing strongly—as I argued at the commencement of my speech—that each member's response to the budget should seek more scrutiny of, and probity from, this Government. However, it is ridiculous to do so at this point as the horse has already bolted. Earlier in debate I referred to revenue expenses and to the ability of the Rees Government to deliver expense cuts. It will not be able to deliver expense cuts. The Rees Government said that, miraculously, in two years time it will be able to cut expense growth to 2.9 per cent. But that will not happen.
Referring to some of the budget forecasts, a UBS economist said that the budget was optimistic on expenses restraint, which was understating the case. The UBS economist also said that expenses growth of less than 3 per cent "looks difficult against a decade average almost twice as fast, and three times as fast in the past few years". There is no fiscal restraint. When we look at the forecasts we find that it starts to get scary. The path back to black is predicated on expense control—something that the Rees Labor Government has not been able to achieve. Savings measures in the mini-budget are yet to be achieved. Even the small savings measures identified have not been returned. Ultimately, this will undermine all forecast estimates.
Government members have continually referred to this State's triple-A credit rating. Credit ratings reveal the laziness of politicians across the country. It has been said that any State that retains its triple-A credit rating is managing its finances well, when the truth of the matter is different. There is a huge amount of flexibility in a triple-A rating. Current ratings agency comments point to the fact that this State has a balanced economy and that there is minimal tolerance for a structural weakening in projected finances. The ratings agency also said that, historically, New South Wales has had difficulty controlling its costs. If these projected expense savings were not achieved, no doubt this State's credit rating would come back into focus.
This Government is unable to manage, and to live to the potential offered by, a triple-A credit rating. It has gone to the precipice and it has delivered nothing. This State is behind on infrastructure, it has rising debt, it is not controlling expenses, and the loss of its triple-A credit rating is imminent. A Deutsche Bank economist said on budget day in relation to the triple-A credit rating:
The ability of NSW to deliver on their expenditure saving commitments will likely be critical to NSW keeping its AAA.
At the same time we have seen the Government attempt to sell off our assets. I will not rule it out and say that selling off assets is a bad thing, but the Government should not sell off our assets at the bottom end of the market while credit costs continue to be high. Granted, there has been an easing in the cost of credit, but it still remains high.
It is by no means in the interests of any Treasurer of this State to be solving budget problems by selling off education land. The sale of public education land—one area of the budget about which we want to hold the Government to account—is not a means of fixing a leaky budget. The $240 million budgetary allocation should not be thrown into the bucket and forgotten about. Education land is finite and it is critical to the future of all generations. It is nonsense for this Government even to consider selling it.
At best, this Government's electricity sale proposal is a debacle. Former NSW Treasury Secretary John Pierce described it as the second best option and people across the market said that its complexity would preclude people from bidding. We do not know what risks are associated with that proposal, There is no international interest, there are very few bidders and there is no competitive tension. We might well end up in a position where we receive almost nothing for it, we will maintain all the risks associated with it and, from a capital and a budget point of view, we will still be exposed. As a result of all those scenarios, I ask the Rees Labor Government to consider its budget proposal seriously.
I wish to refer quickly to the budget allocation for the Manly electorate. The northern beaches hospital remains on this Government's agenda but it is yet to commit funds to proceed with that project. I ask it to commit those funds. On 30 June 2006 the Hon. John Hatzistergos announced the site for the new 400-bed northern beaches hospital and he also announced a completion date of 2012. We are marching closer to that completion date but we are yet to see the commencement of that project. For 3½ years we have seen no action in relation to that hospital—just one example of how this Government announces new infrastructure but delivers nothing. That stands in stark contrast to the commitment by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to deliver every piece of infrastructure that it announces—a cornerstone of an O'Farrell government.
There is no money to fix the congested Spit corridor. I have written to the Minister for Transport and asked him to address that problem. The Government's piecemeal plan will take five years to shave off five minutes of travel time. The Government must provide a holistic public transport solution for The Spit corridor and it must fast-track clean-up work at Manly and Curl Curl lagoons. This budget is all spin and no substance. There is plenty for this Government to do if it wants to turn around this State. This budget reveals that the Rees Labor Government will not honour its promises.
|
