HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATE BUDGET

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:41): Continuing on from my speech on the budget yesterday, I want to say that this Labor budget has delivered nothing but debt, deficit and deceit. It is going to hurt South Australians not only now but will continue to do so for many years to come. Is this the rhetoric you would expect from a member of the opposition? Consider this: as long ago as 2005-06 the report from the then auditor-general, Ken MacPherson, warned the Rann government in the following terms:

The Government has benefited from substantial windfall property taxation revenue and from higher than budgeted Commonwealth government current grants, particularly from GST revenues.

He also stated:

Given the forecast expectation that such revenue growth may not be sustained, control of expenses will be important.

The new Auditor-General, Simon O'Neill, advised in a similar vein in his 2007-08 report that 'the state may have developed a culture of expecting growing revenues to support increased expenses'. In other words, for the last five years this government has been on notice that it was living beyond its means.

Many decisions that have been made are bad, particularly in relation to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. As I said last night, when the costs have blown out by over double before a single brick is laid, should the decision not be reversed because we cannot afford it? As the member for Mitchell said, when is the sky falling down? I believe it is when it comes to an issue like this.

If you were planning a new home and you budgeted for $400,000 for that home and you got the estimate from the builder of $800,000, what would you do as a private person? You would say, 'No, thanks,' and get a new quote, redesign your house or just not spend the money. I am wondering what the process in this government is to say no to a project we cannot afford. The worst thing about all this is not in the budget. Who in the government ranks makes this decision? Are all the government backbenchers involved? Was the member for Mitchell asked? Were you, member for Mitchell?

Mr Sibbons: We have already heard this.

Mr VENNING: Was the member for Bright? I will name all the marginal members. Was the member for Bright asked? Was the member for Mawson asked? Was the member for Taylor asked? Was the member for Light asked? Was the member for Florey asked? Was the member for Hartley asked? All these members are in the firing line when you have a state that is in debt, as we are.

I was here during the State Bank, remember? We lost a lot of good friends in that debacle. You were left with 10 on this side of the house, and you are going to go the same way because this debt is going to be larger than that one was and we are not going to have the capacity to pay it back. No doubt the Liberals will form government in March 2014. How are you going to arrest a debt in the vicinity of $12 billion? How are you going to pay that back? Are you caring? Are you thinking about it? In business, I would be because I do not want to pass on to my kids a business or home situation that is totally broke. There is nothing worse than families handing on to the kids, where the kids have to go into rented housing because the family has lost the home, lost the assets, lost the property.

What do you think you are leaving to our next generation? It is going to be sad as we go into the 2014 election knowing that the people coming behind us, behind this government, are going to have a real train wreck on their hands. Of all those members I have named—and I am happy to talk to you privately in the corridors—were you consulted? Did you get the opportunity to put up your hand in the caucus room? Did you? I have not heard anything since I made this comment yesterday. As the member from Mitchell said, the sky will fall down and the state will be at a tremendous financial disadvantage.

I just cannot understand why we cannot make efforts to prune. We on this side of the house are here to cooperate. We are, with all the rhetoric aside, because we hope to govern in 2014 and we have to try to soften that blow. If you are not prepared to listen, and if you yourselves were not asked, I just wonder how bad it would have to be. If the price came to be $5 billion, would you still build it? Would you still go ahead, when we have the great opportunity to upgrade the Royal Adelaide right where it is, with a reputation we are all very envious of? I hope the members will consider this.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Light.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT