Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

Behold the deficit sayeth Hanson in his budget reply

By johnboy - 6 June 2013 8

The Liberals have sent forth Jeremy Hanson’s budget reply.

In which he outlines the staqgering debts of the Stanhope/Gallagher Government as they forever promise a balanced budget next year while running up the credit card this year.

The accumulated interest bill in this budget totals over $650 million dollars.

To put that into a meaningful context, that is the equivalent of building and staffing an entire new hospital, all in this term, and all without debt.

It would build all of light rail, all in this term, and all without debt.

It would cover the entire cost of the Cotter Dam, and leave $200 million in change.

And it could create and protect thousands of jobs.

But we cannot do any of that, because of the mismanagement of the budget by this government. That is why good governments avoid debt. That is why prudent management counts.


UPDATE: Andrew Barr is very cross:

The Opposition Leader has delivered a budget reply speech littered with lies, errors and distortions that demonstrate a complete lack of competence.

It’s also now clear why he refused a debate about our competing plans for Canberra – it was because he has no positive policy agenda.

Mr Hanson has had months to develop policy alternatives since becoming Opposition Leader – today was his chance to outline some of them. Not only was his speech devoid of vision, it was a re-hash of the same tired and discredited “Hansonisms” we’ve heard over the past few years.

Andrew has neglected to actually point out which of the specific statements were lies, errors, distortions.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
8 Responses to
Behold the deficit sayeth Hanson in his budget reply
HiddenDragon 10:40 am 10 Jun 13

dungfungus said: #7 ……Read front page of the CT today about light rail and other projects requiring large slabs of capital and how the ACT Ratepayers will have to underwrite the shortfalls.
I believe this is the commencement of Barr’s bullying campaign to “build receptivity” for the axing of the Capital Metro light rail project. He quotes reasons that have already been pointed out to him on this blog (appears he has checked them out)……..

Please let this be true – we already have too many liabilities.

dungfungus 9:58 am 10 Jun 13

muscledude_oz said :

I note Labor has reneged on their promise during the election campaign to upgrade and extend the Lakeside Leisure Centre (Tuggers Pool). No money allocated in the Budget. Looks like the people of Tuggeranong are being punished for not voting for Labor and The Greens in the election. Meanwhile the rusted-on Labor/Greens voters in Gungahlin and Belconnen are being rewarded for their loyalty with millions going towards light rail and countless other projects.

Read front page of the CT today about light rail and other projects requiring large slabs of capital and how the ACT Ratepayers will have to underwrite the shortfalls.
I believe this is the commencement of Barr’s bullying campaign to “build receptivity” for the axing of the Capital Metro light rail project. He quotes reasons that have already been pointed out to him on this blog (appears he has checked them out).
A light rail network for Canberra is viable but only if it is a lighter and much cheaper version of the one Corbell and Rattenbury have a mindset on and only if it is extended (in the first stage) south beyond Civic across Commonwealth Avenue bridge to the Parliamentary triangle and tourist destinations nearby (which is projected in Corbell’s City to the Lake concept). This will attract the extra passengers required to make it work. There is no reason why the ACT (with its AAA credit rating) could not fund this project by selling the debt through bonds. There are lots of super funds looking to invest in these type of projects through buying bonds.

Mysteryman 11:14 pm 09 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

“It’s also now clear why he refused a debate about our competing plans for Canberra – it was because he has no positive policy agenda.”

I would call balancing a budget a positive policy agenda.

Fair suck of the sav there – it was only 12 months ago that Andrew Barr was crowing loudly about the great budget surpluses the Territory was to enjoy from this year on. It is one thing to have “a positive policy agenda” (as you infer Barr had) but another thing to “have no idea” which it turns out he had.

I think you misunderstood me. I was quoting Barr, who claimed that Hanson had no positive policy agenda. I suggested that presumably Hanson’s agenda is to balance the budget, and that must surely be considered positive policy.

gooterz 9:56 pm 09 Jun 13

muscledude_oz said :

I note Labor has reneged on their promise during the election campaign to upgrade and extend the Lakeside Leisure Centre (Tuggers Pool). No money allocated in the Budget. Looks like the people of Tuggeranong are being punished for not voting for Labor and The Greens in the election. Meanwhile the rusted-on Labor/Greens voters in Gungahlin and Belconnen are being rewarded for their loyalty with millions going towards light rail and countless other projects.

How many members actually live in Tuggeranong? my guess probably 0

muscledude_oz 12:14 pm 07 Jun 13

I note Labor has reneged on their promise during the election campaign to upgrade and extend the Lakeside Leisure Centre (Tuggers Pool). No money allocated in the Budget. Looks like the people of Tuggeranong are being punished for not voting for Labor and The Greens in the election. Meanwhile the rusted-on Labor/Greens voters in Gungahlin and Belconnen are being rewarded for their loyalty with millions going towards light rail and countless other projects.

dungfungus 10:11 am 07 Jun 13

Mysteryman said :

“It’s also now clear why he refused a debate about our competing plans for Canberra – it was because he has no positive policy agenda.”

I would call balancing a budget a positive policy agenda.

Fair suck of the sav there – it was only 12 months ago that Andrew Barr was crowing loudly about the great budget surpluses the Territory was to enjoy from this year on. It is one thing to have “a positive policy agenda” (as you infer Barr had) but another thing to “have no idea” which it turns out he had.

Mysteryman 9:55 am 07 Jun 13

“It’s also now clear why he refused a debate about our competing plans for Canberra – it was because he has no positive policy agenda.”

I would call balancing a budget a positive policy agenda.

HiddenDragon 9:11 am 07 Jun 13

The accumulated interest bill of over $650 million dollars referred to by Hanson is an illuminating figure when compared to the Budget figures for rates and conveyancing duties:

http://apps.treasury.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/455979/3.1-Revenue-and-Forward-Estimates.pdf – table 3.1.3

I assume the $650 million is over four years (?) – which would be an average of a little over $160 million a year, as against conveyancing duty estimates of $216 to $259 million per year in the period 2013/14 to 2016/17. So without the interest bill, we could do away with about two-thirds of conveyancing duties without the need for any compensating increase in rates.

That said, the Liberals (like just about every opposition party I have ever seen) are doing their best to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to opposing Budget nasties and going quiet, or calling for even more, on the goodies.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site