BREAKING NEWS NSW plunges $178BILLION into the red in latest budget - as it reveals its latest spending spree
Charting a path back to surplus, the treasurer compiling Australia's largest state budget has advised caution amid global uncertainty as he trumpets stability.
NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey unveiled the $128billion 2025/26 state budget on Tuesday focused on housing, essential workers and protecting vulnerable communities.
'Investment in our essential services is up, debt is down, and NSW is back on the path toward surplus,' Mr Mookhey told reporters in the budget lock-up.
'This budget has been put together carefully, deliberately, at a time of great global uncertainty, and sends a big message that NSW is stable and NSW is open for business.'
Finance Minister Courtney Houssos said the budget is about reform and accelerating growth.
'Our focus over three budgets has been on controlling what we can in the context of the budget.
'That has resulted in very low expenses growth ... at the same time as we are delivering these important reforms,' she said.
Remaining below target to build 377,000 new homes by 2029 as part of a national housing agreement, the state will make an unprecedented intervention in the housing market.
A $1billion revolving fund will provide pre-sale guarantees as developers seek financing to begin construction.
The funds will go towards low-to-mid-rise developments, some of the most challenging projects to deliver under current market conditions and the kind of homes the state needs to tackle housing affordability constraints, Mr Mookhey said.
The government will guarantee 5000 homes in the hope of supporting the construction of 15,000 more.
It is a step to broaden its response to the housing crisis, moving into the mainstream market after previous budgets focused on supporting priced-out frontline essential workers and building more social housing.
'We are very careful about what projects we are going to guarantee,' Mr Mookhey told reporters.
But it is not the 'plan B' promised following the failure of a plan to build 25,000 homes at Rosehill Racecourse.
A record $1.2 billion child protection package will meanwhile increase support and protection for young people in the state's care.
Allowances for foster carers will increase for the first time in decades.
Almost $50 million will go to building or upgrading residential care homes for children with complex needs, and $191.5 million will support caseworker recruitment and retention.
Mr Mookhey said the package was funded 'from the savings created by no longer having to pay labour hire firms to care for kids in motels'.
A deficit of $3.4billion is forecast for the 2025/26 financial year, falling to $1.1billion in 2026/27.
Modest surpluses of $1.1billion are projected in the following two years.
Mr Mookhey acknowledged 'a lot needs to go right' in order to return to surplus but the state's finances were improving.
Net debt is $120billion while gross debt, hitting $178.8 billion by next June, remains proportionally lower than other states outside resource-rich Western Australia.
But the budget papers note increasing uncertainty from unpredictable global policy including US President Donald Trump's tariff regime.
Other drags on the budget include workers compensation, which the government has been unable to reform before premiums increase on July 1, and natural disasters.
Disaster relief spending has leapt tenfold since the 2019/20 Black Summer Bushfires, when compared to the six years prior, now costing $1.6 billion annually.
WINNERS:
* Indigenous Australians - The Minns Labor Government will allocate $246.8 million over the next 4 years through an additional $202.4 million in the 2025-26 Budget to Close the Gap to improve the lives of Aboriginal people in NSW
* Workers - real wages forecast to grow 0.6 per cent a year after declining 0.1 per cent a year since 2020
* Foster carers - an immediate 20 per cent boost in allowances
* Property developers - Australian-first pre-sale guarantee supporting $1 billion of projects plus $83.4m to speed up planning approvals
* Apprentices - $40.2 million for up to 90,000 fee-free apprenticeships
* School students - $10 billion more for public education over next decade, $9 billion for school infrastructure over four years
* Justice - $856 million to better support victims, prosecute child abuse claims faster and boost domestic violence services
LOSERS:
* Sydney drivers - no extension of $60 weekly toll 'cap' while revenue from government-owned toll roads nearly doubles over four years once the Western Harbour Tunnel opens.
* Feral animals - $9.3 million for pig and deer culling program that has killed 230,000 animals over two years
* Service NSW - the shopfront for government services faces a $70.8 million budget cut including to capital works
* Dodgy officials - corruption and police watchdogs' budgets boosted by nearly 20 per cent
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is selling off Santos to a foreign buyer in Australia's national interest? First, define national interest
Amid the multifarious chaos of the past week, many of us might have missed the controversy over the proposed purchase of the energy business Santos by an overseas consortium. But the proposal is likely to create big problems for Australian governments and its resolution will reveal a lot about how Australian policymakers view energy and climate policy. Santos is one of the largest and oldest Australian producers of oil and gas, second only to Woodside Energy (its name is an acronym of South Australia and Northern Territory Oil Search). The core of its operation is the Moomba gas field in the Cooper Basin, in the north-east corner of South Australia. The company now supplies gas to the entire eastern seaboard and has assets in the Timor Sea and Papua New Guinea. The consortium proposing to buy Santos, called XRG, is owned by the Carlyle Group and the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). Carlyle, named for the New York hotel where its founders met to set up the business, is one of the world's largest private equity companies, with close ties to what US President Eisenhower described as the 'military-industrial complex'. Its early years are described in Dan Briody's book The Iron Triangle. Abu Dhabi is the wealthiest and most important of the United Arab Emirates. The value of its state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds total over a trillion dollars. Abu Dhabi's wealth is derived almost entirely from oil and gas, so it is unsurprising to see its national oil company pursuing expansion through acquisitions like the proposed buyout of Santos. Unsurprisingly the prospect of handing ownership of a large share of Australia's energy resources to buyers like these has raised concerns. Most commonly, these are expressed in terms of energy security or, more nebulously, national interest. The issue of energy security can be dismissed pretty rapidly. Unlike the oil we import, the gas is physically located here. If we need it, we can keep it, regardless of the legalities of ownership, contracts and so on. At one time, perhaps, such an attitude might have raised concerns about sovereign risk, threats to future investment and so on. Foreign owners might have threatened us with action under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) agreements. But the 'rules-based order' in which such concerns made sense, is largely a thing of the past, for good or ill. ISDS, in particular, is more or less dead. Even so, the government has shied away from fixing the absurdly unfavourable gas export contracts signed by Santos and others a decade ago. Concerns about how the deal might affect our national interest are harder to address, mainly because Australian governments have no clear idea of what our national interest might be. It might be argued that we ought to be maximising the returns from our natural resources, while winding down fossil fuels, in line with the goal of achieving 'net zero' emissions globally by 2050. But there is no sign that Australian energy policy is motivated by such goals. In fact, Santos has been a major player in the expansion of gas exports, notably of LNG from Queensland, and is pushing for even higher exports. The company has just received regulatory approval for the $5.8bn Barossa offshore gas project off the Northern Territory coast, described by critics as a 'carbon bomb'. The extra financial resources available to XRG might accelerate this. What is in our 'national interest' is similarly incoherent in regards to tax revenue. Australia taxes its massive gas exports weakly, and it's hard to see how we would get a worse deal from a foreign owned company compared to an Australian one. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Finally, neither Carlyle nor Adnoc can be expected to have any concern with the wellbeing of Australians. Carlyle, as a private company, is concerned with maximising its profits. Adnoc wants profits but also more influence over global markets. But it is a mistake to think that Santos cares any more, except about those Australians who happen to be shareholders, and who can expect a big payout if the takeover goes ahead. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court gives Trump a win on deporting migrants
Sotomayor wrote that her colleagues are "rewarding lawlessness." "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," she wrote in a dissent joined by Kagan and Jackson. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." The majority did not provide an explanation for their decision, which is common in emergency appeals. The administration said the order is preventing potentially thousands of deportations by requiring an "onerous set of procedures" aimed at preventing migrants from being sent to a country where they reasonably fear they could be persecuted, tortured or killed. "The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in his emergency appeal. He complained that the order is forcing the government to hold "dangerous criminals" at a military base in Djibouti so they can contest their removal to South Sudan - a problem attorneys for the migrants said the administration created for itself. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the migrants need to be told where they are going and given a meaningful opportunity to tell the United States that they might be harmed if sent there. "This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States," Murphy wrote. To back up his order, Murphy in part cited the Supreme Court's April decision that migrants must be able to contest whether they can be removed using a wartime law. On May 21, Murphy said the Trump administration violated his order by removing eight migrants to conflict-ridden South Sudan without giving them an opportunity to object. The migrants' lawyers said the administration has "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Many, if not most, of the migrants covered by the judge's order have no criminal convictions, the lawyers said. And those with serious criminal convictions who were chosen for the flights to Libya and South Sudan are equally protected under the law from basic human rights violations, they argued. One of the migrants represented by the attorneys, a Guatemalan man, who was deported to Mexico, was flown back on June 4 after the judge ordered his return. Murphy issued that directive after the Justice Department said it had wrongly told the court the man was not afraid of being sent to Mexico.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Overblown infrastructure projects damage lives and imperil democracy. Why is Britain addicted to them?
There appear to be two main determinants of what infrastructure gets built. The first is whether it provides large and lucrative contracts for powerful corporations. The second is whether ministers can pose beside it in hard hats and yellow jackets. Otherwise, it is hard to explain the decisions made. Both determinants favour large and spectacular schemes. Big corporations don't want to dabble in minor improvements: real money comes from prestige projects over which governments cannot afford to lose face, ensuring that they keep throwing cash, however high the budget spirals. And few ministers want to pose beside a new bus stop: a grand ego demands a grand setting. Last week, the government quietly flicked another £590m at the planned Lower Thames Crossing, to the east of London. That's the kind of money other public services must beg for. Compare it, for example, with the funding allocated in this month's spending review for local amenities such as parks, libraries and swimming pools. Across the whole of England, they received £350m. But the extra money for the Lower Thames Crossing buys less than a mile of road. It means that the total costs of the scheme, according to the government, have risen to £9.2bn, for 14 miles of road. Even this is a major underestimate. As the Transport Action Network (Tan) points out, several aspects of the project, such as necessary upgrades to junctions and connecting roads, to take the extra traffic, have been excluded from the total, disguising the full cost. TAN estimates it at £16bn. That's more than all the new money (£15bn) trumpeted by Rachel Reeves this month for buses, trains and trams in England, outside London. It's seven times as much as the Treasury allocated to fixing England's school classrooms. Or the government could use it to double the amount invested in the National Housing Bank, to build social and affordable homes: which, by contrast, we need. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is shocking, whichever way you slice it. Using the official figure for costs, the government body National Highways estimated the BCR at 0.48: in other words, a net loss of 52 pence for every pound spent. It then threw in some vaguely defined 'wider economic benefits' to deliver an 'adjusted BCR' of 1.22. That's still low value for money. Compare it with fixing potholes and maintaining local roads, which has a BCR of 7, officially 'very high' value for money. Oh, and guess what? The maintenance backlog for England's local roads is just over £16bn. I asked the Campaign for Better Transport to estimate what else might be done with the official figure of £9.2bn. It told me the money would enable every community in England to have what the government defines as a 'reasonable level' of bus services for the next nine years. Or it could pay for 11,400 miles (18,400km) of cycle lanes, or 5,700 miles (9,200km) of bus lanes. So why is this vastly expensive white elephant endlessly inflated while crucial services and benefits are cut? The clue is the 'vastly expensive' bit: a single project on this scale can be extremely lucrative for large corporations, and they will lobby for it with commensurate vigour. The government insists the new road will relieve congestion. But even 30 years ago, official assessments showed that new roads generate new traffic, a phenomenon called 'induced demand'. They shift congestion to the next pinch point, which becomes another issue for the government to solve: jobs-for-life for the construction industry. Using modelling data from National Highways, Thurrock council estimates that traffic on the Dartford crossing, which the new road is supposed to relieve, will return to current levels in just five years. Given that the Lower Thames Crossing will take at least seven years to build, with massive disruption throughout, it's hard to detect the public benefit. It will also funnel more traffic on to the M25, A13 and M2, greatly increasing congestion. TAN has done what successive governments, astonishingly, have failed to do: commissioned a report on how demand for freight and passenger transport in the region and on the wider network might best be met. It found that new heavy freight and passenger rail connections would provide a far more effective solution, at roughly a quarter of the price. Even with added rail loading gauge upgrades and electrification, bus routes, ferries and trams, this approach would remain far cheaper, while meeting public need, reducing pollution and social exclusion and catalysing the long-overdue transition to rail freight in the UK. But neither successive governments nor National Highways have seriously examined such alternatives to the crossing. For the past 60 years, the answer has been roads, regardless of the question. Not only has National Highways ignored other means of solving the problem, it has become promoter as well as planner of the scheme, engaging in a public relations offensive that looks to me like a crashing conflict of interest. If you want what transport planners call a 'modal shift' from one kind of travel to another, first you need a conceptual shift. But we won't get it from existing agencies. National Highways is a relic of another age, unfit for purpose, driving us towards disaster. It should be scrapped. The greatest costs of schemes such as this are felt not in our tax bills, but in our bodies, minds and surroundings. The government estimates the new road will generate 6.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide. It would greatly increase both air pollution and traffic noise, and commit us to an even greater extent to car driving, with all its destructive implications for health, fitness and mental wellbeing, community cohesion and social attitudes. As a rule, though there are exceptions, what improves our lives are multiple small interventions, tailored to local needs and responsive to local democracy. What damages our lives are prestige projects tailored to the demands of big finance and corporate shareholders. The capital behind them, that sometimes seems more powerful than governments, treats democracy and public need as traffic engineers treat pedestrians – obstacles to be designed out of the way. Sometimes big infrastructure is necessary, but at all times it is a threat to democracy. This is why governments should approach it with caution and scepticism. Instead, they act as hucksters for corporate boondoggles. Such schemes allow politicians to stamp their mark on the nation, to don the hard hat and announce: 'I did this.' Look on my works, ye mighty … One measure of a nation's success is the extent to which it can reduce its dependence on road transport, in favour of inclusive, low-impact travel. Our government seems committed to failure. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
