Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, I rise to make the Greens’ contribution to this topic of financial management. I have to say, as much as I like seeing the Liberal and Labor parties slugging it out across the parliament about their own perspectives when it comes to financial management, we have to take into account that the TT‑Line saga has been an absolute fundamental fiasco. It’s a gift that keeps giving to the opposition, it’s really clear.
The thing that just beggars’ belief in the context of the big debates that this parliament is having is how the Labor Party can endorse the stadium and back in the stadium because if we think the Spirits is bad enough, the stadium is going to be the Spirits on steroids. We look forward to having that debate in substance later on down the line.
Failure really characterises financial management from this government over the last 10 years; ideological failure, policy failure, and of course priorities as well. Starting with the ideology, which we heard again today in Question Time as a response, that you can grow your way out of this problem, that ‘We’ve got to build this stadium because it’s going to grow the economy’. That’s the Treasurer speaking directly counter to the advice of his own treasury in the Pre-Election Financial Outlook (PEFO). Let me read from page 2 in the PEFO the key findings:
The State Budget has a structural problem. Economic growth correlates weakly with general government sector revenue growth in Tasmania. Accordingly, this structural problem will not be resolved through future economic growth. Explicit policy choices are needed. [tbc]
It’s there in black and white, Treasurer. You can’t grow yourself out of this problem and you need to make other difficult decisions that you’re not willing to, to fix this problem, and that starts with avoiding unnecessary spending like on third billion-dollar stadium at Macquarie Point.
The problems here go deeper though, because there are the personal ideologies as well. We know the Treasurer believes in smaller government. We know he believes in not passing on intergenerational debt, but he’s willing to put that one aside for the moment, and it’s an absolute fail. The other fundamental failure when it comes to policy is not being willing to raise additional revenue; not being willing to make big corporations pay their fair share, tax some of the industries that are paying less than the average mainland rates, and raise revenue so that we can spend it on the services that Tasmanians need and deserve.
While the Treasurer fundamentally refuses to rule out raising revenue, he keeps pointing to this failed ideology of growing our way out of this problem. It’s just simply not going to work. Saul Eslake has been abundantly clear that we need big policy change. He says that the situation we’re in at the moment is all about policy decisions. It’s about too much pork-barrelling during election time, it’s about not being willing to raise revenue, and it’s about debt; continuing to debt fund projects.
The Greens found a billion dollars of savings in our election commitments. We identified $900 million worth of additional revenue raising, and, when you took into account the new spending that we identified to support the community to meet some of the needs that they are crying out for, the budget would be $1.4 billion better off. Budgets are about policy as well and about priority. What we’re seeing in this budget are issues around health, housing, child safety and literacy not being addressed. We’re seeing the financial commitment from the state fall off a cliff going forward, and that’s at a time when the current system is not meeting the needs of Tasmanians already.
Debt is out of control, and debt is a real risk to our credit rating. If our credit rating does get reduced, then the cost of servicing that debt is going to be even more expensive; $7 billion by the end of next year or by the end of the financial year, $10 billion by the end of the 2029 financial year, and Saul Eslake predicts that it could get as high as $16 billion in 2035. It could be even worse than that.
Of course, the stadium is central in this conversation. The figure of $1.8 billion over the next 10 years is an estimate based on the $945 million construction cost. We know that’s blown out to $1.13 billion, and that’s not the end of it. We, the taxpayer, are on the hook for every single one of those cost blowouts.
Prof Gruen said it shows all the hallmarks of mismanagement. Treasury has identified that there are significant risks when it comes to the cost estimates and that it is likely ‑ or it could possibly – blow out, and the Tasmanian Planning Commission is absolutely unequivocal that we should not build it. It’s going to cost us tens of millions of dollars every year simply to service the debt, let alone pay it off.
