STATE BUDGET

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:46): My question is to the Premier. Why should the public believe that the government will deliver future surpluses as budgeted, given that it has promised $2.6 billion worth of surpluses over seven years, but is now budgeting $3 billion worth of deficits in those years, a turnaround of some $5.6 billion?

The SPEAKER: Questions that are framed, as today's opposition questions have been, as 'Why should the public believe…?' are very wide in scope and accordingly the opposition should not complain about the answers. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:46): I am happy to answer the question, Mr Speaker. Essentially, the turnaround that has occurred from what was forecast and the results that have occurred has been principally revenue effects.

Mrs Redmond: You're getting more revenue than you budgeted for.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Principally revenue effects. We now have revenue as a proportion of the economy falling to the lowest levels since 2002. We have reducing levels of taxation revenue coming from the economy.

Mr Marshall: That's not true.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, it simply is true.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It simply is true. It is published in the budget papers.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, revenue as a proportion of the economy has fallen to its lowest level since 2002.

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Adelaide to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: And the reason why you should have confidence in the forecasts is that, despite the fact that revenue has increased modestly over the forward estimates, they have been reduced further by $353 million since the Mid-Year Budget Review. What we have are further writedowns in gambling tax, payroll tax, stamp duty receipts and GST receipts, because of the conservative assumptions that we have made about revenue growth into the future.

People should have confidence about those revenue forecasts because they are at relatively low levels. What we have seen is writedown after writedown after writedown. There is a point at which one begins to have confidence in the fact that these are very conservative estimates, especially when you see the proportion of the economy.

Mrs Redmond: No, not when you get them wrong every time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the chief economist at St George Bank, who at the breakfast that we had to discuss the budget was asked directly by the audience, 'What do you think of the revenue estimates? What do you think of the forecast of growth in the budget?' He said they seemed reasonable and that he believed that the Treasury forecasts were conservative and reasonable.

All we are doing is forecasting a return to trend growth in relation to some of our own tax revenue. We have in fact written down some of the estimates for next year in relation to the value of property transactions, so the value of properties around which transactions will occur. That flows through the forward estimates. We have written down those other estimates. You can see what our budget has published in terms of new spending.

You have seen how we have made savings through our contingencies and the funds that are coming from the commonwealth. That is why you should have confidence. The truth is that, if those opposite really cavilled with the projections that we made, the time to do that would have been in the budget reply. But we had none of that. We had no serious critique of the budget. All we had was the bland—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier should not make reference to a debate before the house.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not refer to the debate before the house, but these words were repeated outside the house. It was described by those opposite as a dangerous budget, yet by all of the major commentators, including the Financial Review, The Australian and the venerable institution The Advertiser, it was described as a cautious budget—a cautious, prudent budget. Those opposite are completely out of step with the preponderance of opinion about the budget settings.

The SPEAKER: I call the members for Schubert and Hammond to order. I warn the member for Kavel for the first time and I warn the member for Heysen for the second and final time. The member for Ashford.