The most compelling thing about the Liberals’
fiscal strategy just released is that it may signify the dawn of a new era of
consensus.
The fiscal strategy is barely distinguishable
from the government’s current strategy.
The government’s all important measure of
budget sustainability, that the net operating surplus be at least $50 million
per year won’t be achieved over the next four years.
The Liberals have responded with a strategy
to do better.
Yep, that’s the strategy. To do better.
Specifically the target for net operating
balance over the budget year and the forward estimates period will be for
improved outcomes each year on current forecasts and to point the budget in the
longer term direction of a surplus.
Nothing specific but just to do better than
Labor.
If Labor’s budget outlook is drowning in an
ocean of red ink, as the Liberals claim, then so is theirs.
Maybe the proposed authority to tackle red
and green tape could have a look at reducing hyperbole as well.
The Liberals planned level of infrastructure
spending is identical to that of the government, to spend an amount at least
equal to the level of depreciation of existing infrastructure.
Which will be achieved in the next 2 years simply
by spending $500 million on the Royal Hobart Hospital, two thirds of which come
from the Feds.
Big deal.
In the long term expenditure growth will be
maintained at two per cent.
Big deal.
There’s no alternative.
That’s the expected revenue growth, there’s
nothing in the kitty and no other source of funds. Tax increases have been
ruled out. The internal borrowings of almost $1 billion are maxxed out and further
external borrowings can’t be serviced.
It’s not such a noble objective when there’s
no alternative.
The Libs
have acknowledged a majority Hodgman Liberal Government will adhere to the
principles of sound financial management as defined in the Charter of Budget
Responsibility Act 2007 (the CBR Act) to ensure transparency and accountability
in developing, implementing and reporting on fiscal objectives.
A few weeks ago the Libs’ plan had been given
a tick of approval by a lot of observers. But the deterioration of the Libs’
likely inherited opening balances as detailed in the Mid Year report plus the
rash of subsequent promises and the realisation that many of the larger ticket
savings are either unlikely or won’t occur in the timeframe indicated, means there
is every likelihood the Libs will fall at the first hurdle.
The Libs are on track to produce a worse net operating
deficit than the government in 2014/15.
It seems Mr Hodgman has finally admitted he
plans to terminate 800+ public servants which will give a net downsizing figure
of 500.
Thus far the Libs have denied that redundancies
will be needed.
Nevertheless payment for accrued leave and amounts
to cover superannuation benefit payments for older unfunded members will be
required. These don’t form part of a net operating balance calculation as they
are accruals already recorded in an earlier period.
Cash outlays will be needed however, which will
worsen net debt and may necessitate a more permanent line of borrowings which
will incur interest.
The media are yet to get Mr Hodgman to admit
to the additional cash needed to get rid of 800 employees.
Ms Giddings experience two years ago when
downsizing was last attempted was that only half the planned number ended up
leaving and the cash savings were hardly noticeable in the first year.
It’s not as cut and dried as the Libs
pretend.
Libs’ small business spokesman Mr Brooks
recently chided his adversaries by claiming “(t)he
Labor-Green government don't (sic) understand cash flow management.”He should
perhaps give his colleague Mr Gutwein a lesson. Financial planners are notorious
for being unable to distinguish between profits and cash flow.
Mr Gutwein’s media release which accompanied
the fiscal strategies noted “Labor has lost control of the State’s finances”. A
close look at the Libs plan doesn’t instil any confidence that they even
understand the problems let alone are capable of rectifying matters.
The CBR Act requires fiscal strategies to be
made public (Sec. 6) to specifically increase public awareness (Sec 4). The
Libs paid lip service to the Act by posting the strategies on Mr Gutwein’s
website rather than on Will Hodgman’s site which is the go-to-point for Lib
policies and media releases.
Not that the government has been forthcoming about
how their current budgets comprehensively fail to meet most of the benchmarks
contained in their own fiscal strategies.
The government has been grossly remiss.
Both parties are co-conspirators in hiding
the truth from electors.
The Greens too have released their fiscal strategies.
It’s a bit of a cut and paste from their 2010 strategy. Still determined to
extinguish the $5 billion unfunded superannuation liability by 2035 will mean
that 10%+ of operating revenues will be devoted to payments in respect of the
unfunded superannuation scheme. Given that at least 5% needs to spent on
infrastructure (or more if the light rail project is to proceed), the Greens in
effect will need to severely prune amounts spent on current operations. The
strategy needs reviewing.
The fiscal strategies of the three major
parties are similar.
They’re all unachievable.
There is no doubt that all plans will fail to
meet their own benchmarks given the revised outlook presented in the Mid Year
report.
We have, for what’s it’s worth, a
tripartite consensus.
There needs to be a tripartite acknowledgement
that all plans currently before the voters are inadequate and that we need to
work together to solve what are not insurmountable problems.
The mantra that majority government, rule by
the 51%, will move the state forward is seriously delusional.
I'd be curious to know some solutions from your overview of the State Budget
ReplyDeleteFor me, a sustainable budget position is spending 85% of operating revenue on operating expenses, 5% on infrastructure, 5% on financing including paying past unfunded superannuation benefits leaving 5% for a rainy day.
ReplyDeleteAdditional infrastructure spending may come from capital grants from the Feds.
This needs to be done over a 5 year period with a combination of increased revenue, reduced functions in some areas and continuing productivity increases.
Increased revenue can only come from increased state taxes. We can’t expect the Feds to increase GST and simply hand the increases to the States. About 20% of our revenue comes from State taxes. It needs to be say 23%. The majority of Tasmanians don’t pay their fair share of State taxes which average about $1,700 for every man women and child. I don’t.
But first and foremost there needs to be a recognition and acceptance of our situation. It’s not dire. It needs a dose of realism and a cooperative spirit, both of which have been noticeably absent of late.