Victoria has a whopping debt. Jacinta Allan is betting that nobody cares
Symes freely admitted she could have banked some of the windfall gains Victoria received from larger than expected Commonwealth grants but instead decided to spend it. In post-fiscal Victoria, where red is the new black, a treasurer's preference to spend rather than save is claimed as a virtue.
Independent economist Saul Eslake likens this to Symes flipping the bird to anyone concerned about Victoria's financial situation. He also points out that Victoria posting an operating surplus is a meaningless milestone on what appears to be a very distant path to fiscal repair.
Before it can start paying down debt, the Victorian government must return the budget to cash surplus. This means, it must generate more revenue than the money it spends on both recurrent expenditure and capital investments. This is the measure the federal government uses when it declares a budget in surplus or deficit.
According to this measure, the Victorian Labor government has not delivered a proper surplus since its first budget handed down 11 years ago and there is no prospect it will deliver one in the forseeable future.
Tuesday's budget forecasts that the government will finish the current financial year $19 billion short and the four years of the budget period will chalk up a further $38.5 billion in losses. This is why the debt is forecast to rise from $155.5 billion this year to $194 billion in 2028-29.
Before it can start paying down debt, the Victorian government must also be convinced this is something it actually needs to do. Why would they think this? They have run up debt to previously unimagined levels and won three elections along the way.
Like a recovering alcoholic in denial, the government has set out a five-step strategy for recovery but has no plans to stop drinking. The government reckons it can stay on the sauce and keep functioning as a reliable provider of public services.
Now for the caveats. The cost of Victoria's debt is starting to bite. We can see this in delayed government commitments to delivering important services, like full funding of public schools under the Gonski reforms, and promised capital works.
We can see it in the weight of inefficient, state-based taxes layered onto business and property owners who pay more to operate in Victoria than they would in another state.
We can see it in the fast rising cost of interest. When the state's annual interest bill reaches $10.6 billion in 2028-29, the government will be paying more to service debt than next year's total $8.2 billion appropriations for the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.
In other words, more public money will go to servicing debt than providing social services.
The flip side of this is Victoria will next year pay its interest bill and provide $18.9 billion to education and $17 billion for health and parents will no longer have to use their own money to top up their kids' myki cards. On these measures, the joint hardly feels broke.
The clear message from this budget is that stonking great debt is now a permanent feature of Victoria's finances and voters shouldn't be at all bothered by this. The anodyne choice of title for the budget papers – 'Focused on What Matters Most' – also gives license to look away from things that don't.
Loading
The challenge for the Victorian opposition, and particularly shadow treasurer James Newbury, is to convince enough people that debt matters too. He will begin this argument next week when he delivers his budget reply speech and to win it, will require cogency not readily associated with the Victorian Liberal Party.
Newbury's first task is to reconnect in voters' minds the causal relationship between rising debt and taxes and the squeeze this ultimately places on government services. There is little to be gained from promising to fix something that people don't think is a problem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here's why he shouldn't
Jim Chalmers slammed the door shut this week on doing a deal with the Coalition on tax changes to superannuation. The treasurer is perfectly entitled to thumb his nose at the opposition. Labor first announced these tax changes last term, the government took them to the election, and it then secured a thumping majority on May 3. But Chalmers is making a mistake. The much-depleted Coalition has not yet decided whether it plans to be constructive, in a legislative sense, in this second term on the opposition benches, or whether it will continue with the monomaniacal impulse to say 'no' to most proposals. Chalmers could not agree to the Coalition's twin requests – that the tax change be indexed so that over time the impost does not affect more than the initial estimate of 80,000 people and second, that the tax would not apply to unrealised capital gains (such as a family farm or an expensive artwork) held by an individual's self-managed super fund. Instead, the treasurer has chosen to negotiate with the Greens, who also want tweaks, but who are much more likely to eventually pass the tax in its original form. So, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing from the opposition and some in the more conservative sections of the media, this debate is likely to end up with Chalmers getting his way and securing the new tax – which raises the tax rate to 30 per cent on superannuation balances over $3 million – in its unamended form. The treasurer's mistake is not so much in not compromising on the detail with the Coalition (arguments can be made for and against the proposed changes). Rather, it's in the signal sent to the Coalition about how he intends to negotiate in the coming term of parliament. Chalmers' PhD, Brawler Statesman, was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. Keating's record of reform (backed by Bob Hawke) is part of political folklore now – he floated the Australian dollar, opened up the economy, reduced tariffs, welcomed foreign banks, privatised major government-owned companies such as Qantas and more.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chalmers has earned the right to snub the Coalition, but here's why he shouldn't
Jim Chalmers slammed the door shut this week on doing a deal with the Coalition on tax changes to superannuation. The treasurer is perfectly entitled to thumb his nose at the opposition. Labor first announced these tax changes last term, the government took them to the election, and it then secured a thumping majority on May 3. But Chalmers is making a mistake. The much-depleted Coalition has not yet decided whether it plans to be constructive, in a legislative sense, in this second term on the opposition benches, or whether it will continue with the monomaniacal impulse to say 'no' to most proposals. Chalmers could not agree to the Coalition's twin requests – that the tax change be indexed so that over time the impost does not affect more than the initial estimate of 80,000 people and second, that the tax would not apply to unrealised capital gains (such as a family farm or an expensive artwork) held by an individual's self-managed super fund. Instead, the treasurer has chosen to negotiate with the Greens, who also want tweaks, but who are much more likely to eventually pass the tax in its original form. So, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing from the opposition and some in the more conservative sections of the media, this debate is likely to end up with Chalmers getting his way and securing the new tax – which raises the tax rate to 30 per cent on superannuation balances over $3 million – in its unamended form. The treasurer's mistake is not so much in not compromising on the detail with the Coalition (arguments can be made for and against the proposed changes). Rather, it's in the signal sent to the Coalition about how he intends to negotiate in the coming term of parliament. Chalmers' PhD, Brawler Statesman, was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. Keating's record of reform (backed by Bob Hawke) is part of political folklore now – he floated the Australian dollar, opened up the economy, reduced tariffs, welcomed foreign banks, privatised major government-owned companies such as Qantas and more.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' on unrealised capital gains tax proposal, Geoff Wilson warns
Labor is 'gaslighting the Australian people' by claiming its proposed super tax will impact a small sliver of the population, a leading fund manager has warned as the government and the Greens close in on a deal. The Albanese government's controversial plan to double the tax rate on funds in super accounts above $3m and hit unrealised gains could soon be legislated. Labor has claimed the tax will hit just 80,000 super accounts, however, Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson, who has launched a petition opposing the plan, said by forcing Aussies to pay taxes on paper gains it will hinder investment in Australia. 'Both Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers - and probably most of the government - are gaslighting the Australian people by saying: 'Look, this will only impact a very small percentage of people that pay the additional tax',' Mr Wilson told Sky News. 'That's correct, but what it'll do is actually impact about how $4.2 trillion in superannuation is invested. 'We anticipate that the money will come out of self-managed super funds (SMSF), which is about $1.1 trillion, and billions of that will go into the housing market and push house prices up . ' He cautioned Aussies who use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle will be discouraged from funding projects and businesses in the Australian market. 'People won't want to take risk on their superannuation in in the self-managed super funds,' Mr Wilson said. 'The angel investors and the startups and the small companies in Australia that find it hard to raise capital, particularly at this point in time - that tap's going to be turned off.' He pointed to the taxing of unrealised gains in Norway that drove investment out of the country despite initial expectations it would bring in millions. 'It was only for the ultra-wealthy, they thought they were going to raise $150 million,' Mr Wilson said. 'Instead of raising that, they were minus half a billion.' He also noted the capital gains tax hike in the United Kingdom which resulted in the government taking in 10 per cent less capital gains tax revenue. 'People change their behaviour,' Mr Wilson said. 'We've done economic models, we think it'll be negative to the tune of $94.5 billion on the Australian economy.' Alongside taxing unrealised gains, Labor's super tax has drawn criticism for its failure to index the $3m threshold over time. The Greens want Labor to lower the threshold to $2m and index it to the rate of inflation. New analysis from the Financial Services Council shows that under Labor's plan more than half a million Aussies currently in the workforce will be captured by the tax. Of those impacted, more than 200,000 are currently under 30, while 135,000 are between 30 and 34 and 65,000 are between 35 and 39. The number of impacted taxpayers greatly drops off for Australians 40 and over. The Greens' proposal would hit more than 200,000 Aussies currently in the workforce and is more evenly spread across the age ranges. Financial Services Council CEO Blake Briggs urged Labor to listen to feedback from consumers, industries and economists on how the tax will impact future generations. 'The superannuation industry recognises the government has the capacity to force the new tax through the Parliament with the support of the Greens, but encourages the two parties to take a more constructive and consultative approach,' Mr Briggs said. 'The Financial Services Council encourages the Government to consult on options that would not unfairly target future generations of Australian superannuation consumers and undermine confidence in our retirement system by introducing a new, contentious tax on unrealised capital gains.'
