State election promises: How much has each party pledged?
Less than a week from polling day, The Advertiser takes a deep dive into how much each party has promised to spend if they win the March 19 state election.
State Election
Don't miss out on the headlines from State Election. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The costs for the state election pledges made by both major parties in the leadup to polling day have become the standout issue of contention during the campaign so far.
While Labor’s strategy is to fix problems, such as ambulance ramping, by spending, the Liberals are focusing on tackling state debt by tightening the purse strings.
Each party has accused the other of fudging their numbers, with the Liberals accusing their counterparts of recklessly spending public money while Labor says the Libs are hiding the true cost of their promises to confuse voters.
Meanwhile, SA Best has warned that regardless of who wins Saturday’s election taxpayers will be “hit with a raft of taxes” to pay for their “fiscally reckless and unnecessary election promises”.
WHAT THE LIBERALS SAY
The Liberal Party has made $263m worth of election commitments so far, according to figures it supplied to The Advertiser.
This includes $52.2m for an upgrade of the Lyell McEwin Hospital and carpark, $20m to double the Sports Vouchers program and $7.5m to improve the Adelaide Zoo.
While their official pledge total to date is “less than $300m,” as declared by Premier Steven Marshall at an SA Press Club debate against Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas on Thursday, the party has made other pledges that it has not included in this count.
It says the other promises have been accounted for through existing budget funds, such as the $200m Jobs and Economic Growth Fund; existing departmental resources or budget decisions made before the caretaker period began.
For these reasons the Liberals have not included them in their official pledge list.
The Advertiser asked for a costed list of these promises and was supplied with a sample of “some of the more significant examples of those announcements,” which totalled $548.3m.
This included $200m for additional health funds for the Covid-19 pandemic, however the Liberals later explained that the federal government will, at some point, reimburse some of those costs.
The party has also publicly announced that if re-elected it would inject $97m into expanding Adelaide Botanic High School.
It has also promised a $662m Riverbank Arena, however only $79m has been allocated during the next term of government.
It is unclear how many more promises have been made or how much they cost.
The party has further pledged to transform a disused quarry in Highbury into a 350ha tourism destination suitable for cycling, swimming, diving, kayaking and running, called Crystal Lake Recreation Park.
It has not put a price tag on this promise.
The known figures equal $724.3m when including only the $79m for the arena, and $1.31bn, when adding the full cost of the arena.
If the official pledge amount and the known other promises, with the partial and full cost of the arena, are added together, it brings to the total figure to $988.3m and $1.57bn, respectively.
WHAT LABOR SAYS
The Labor Party has made $3bn worth of pledges so far.
Labor says $944m in operating costs are included in this figure.
According to a list the party supplied to The Advertiser, the Opposition’s promises include $1.2bn over four years for health initiatives, $593m for its hydrogen jobs plan and $336.6m for education and skills policies.
It says part of its costs will be offset by cancelling the Liberals’ $662m Riverbank Arena and directing that money into its health pledges.
THE CONTENTION
Premier Steven Marshall has accused Labor of “throwing money around like confetti”, while Treasurer Rob Lucas has described the Opposition’s pledges as “reckless”.
Mr Lucas says the spending spree is the “single biggest risk” to the state’s finances and economic recovery.
Mr Lucas, in February – before Labor made more commitments – said the Opposition’s pledges totalled more than $3bn and the only way they could pay for them would be to increase taxes.
“SA families and businesses are not stupid – they know if you promise billions in extra spending and at the same time promise to keep budget surpluses, then the only possible result is they pay much more through either increased taxes, charges, levies or other decisions which increase costs to them,” he said at the time.
The Liberals have since been reiterating this message in a bid to convince voters that Labor is not being fiscally responsible.
Labor said Mr Lucas artificially inflated the cost of its pledges by adding to the tally bogus promises they had never made. The Opposition has repeatedly said no extra taxes would be introduced to cover its promises.
On Thursday, Mr Malinauskas said the Liberals had made $2.2bn worth of promises but the party has made more promises since.
Mr Marshall countered this by saying his party had made “less than $300m” in pledges.
On Friday, Labor’s government accountability spokesman Tom Koutsantonis said the Liberals were “hiding (their promise costs) and trying to confuse people by saying ‘oh this was already announced in the budget’.”
“I think this charade has to end,” he said.
Neither party has revealed how it will pay for their pledges. They say they will release this information before polling day.
Meanwhile, SA Best says both Liberal and Labor “have been fiscally irresponsible, making ludicrous election promises that the state either can’t afford, doesn’t need or haven’t been funded for yet”.
“It’s rather bemusing neither the Liberals nor Labor want to talk about the elephant in the room – which is the need to raise taxes to pay for their election promises – yet continue to make all sorts of commitments,” SA Best Treasury spokesman Frank Pangallo said.
More Coverage
When David Speirs is expected to end his political career
Former Liberal leader David Speirs, who has been charged with supplying a controlled substance, is about to formally quit parliament.
Starick: The David Speirs situation is not like other cases
In an alternate reality without The Advertiser, an alleged drug supplier could still be in parliament and voters would have no idea, writes Paul Starick.