Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, I rise to give my contribution to the member for Clark’s bill, the Charter of Budget Responsibility Amendment Bill. I indicate upfront that we certainly support this. Bringing it in line with the electoral cycle or at least the term of government is sensible. I flag that we had concerns at the start about the deliverability of the September timeline. I will talk a little bit more about that. We are of a mind to support the amendment as foreshadowed by the Treasurer.
I start by articulating, of course, that we are looking forward to tomorrow’s Budget. We fear it very deeply. We are already fielding a lot of calls and contact from community service organisations and others who are deeply concerned about their future and their ability to deliver the kind of services that they have historically, the kind of services that Tasmanians need. They are really concerned about tomorrow’s Budget and what it will mean in terms of the lack of funding that they have historically relied upon.
We are deeply concerned about the Budget. The cat was really belled earlier in the year with Saul Eslake’s report into the state’s finances. He articulated that over the next three years, our budget is going to descend into being the worst in the country – that it is policy driving those decisions, it is policy that is driving that decay in the budget position and it is policy that is driving both the debt and the deficit position that this government is delivering. We are really concerned.
We are really concerned also with the backhanded way and the complete rejection that the government has given to that report – eminent economist, considered position, constructive recommendations, things like a parliamentary budget office, et cetera, and just completely consigned to the shelf, it appears. We saw this year, in terms of the Revised Estimates Report, debt projections grow to $9.6 billion dollars by 2028. Mr Eslake has concerningly predicted that our debt levels may hit $16 billion by 2032, costing us $750 million every single year to service. We are on the precipice and we are facing a future where our children are going to inherit intergenerational debt, a level of debt that is completely unsustainable. This government has completely refused to entertain some of the suggestions about raising revenue, or some of the criticisms around its current strategies such as efficiency dividends, for example, or vacancy control being really lazy ways to try to restore the budget position.
We are concerned that the government operates in a bit of a vacuum and an echo chamber where it is just telling itself it is doing the right thing. It keeps telling itself it has got a pathway to surplus when that is apparent to absolutely nobody else. We are deeply concerned.
Needless to say, the stadium and the almost $2 billion of debt that the stadium will rack up and put onto our finances over the next 10 years in terms of both construction and operation is of deep concern. It is completely incongruous with the Labor Party’s position to indicate and display a strong concern around the budget position but then write a blank cheque when it comes to the stadium, the level of public investment in the stadium and the level of public debt that is going to get wrapped up in terms of the stadium.
I really do not need to say a lot about this bill. Reducing the five‑year window or timeframe to four makes sense because, as has been articulated, that brings it in line with the term of government – assuming a government goes full‑term, that is. That means that each government that does go full‑term will be compelled to author and publish one of these fiscal sustainability reports. We absolutely support that and welcome the fact that the Treasurer supports that as well.
On changing 30 June to 30 September, I will echo Mrs Beswick’s concerns that were raised. We had identified in our head the fact that that was potentially an untenable timeline to expect the Treasury to deliver on, notwithstanding Mr Eslake’s rapid delivery of a review of the state’s finances and notwithstanding the fact that Treasury is well‑resourced. We were concerned and were of a mind ourselves to propose an amendment to push it out towards the end of the year or into the next year. Two months to publish this kind of fiscal sustainability report really does seem kind of untenable and an unreasonable expectation to place on Treasury officials.
With that, I signal here and now that given that the four‑year timeframe is going to stay, and this government or any government going forward will ultimately be compelled to deliver one every four years – that we would probably prefer it to be a little bit earlier than the end of February – but we would be willing to support the Treasurer’s proposed amendment about pushing this next report out until the end of February. We will get a level of transparency there. That will be a good five or six months or so ahead of when it would otherwise have been delivered. I think it is a fair and reasonable timeframe for Treasury officials to do this kind of work and make sure that they do it properly.
