The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the community's response to the New South Wales Community Building Partnership?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his question and interest in this very important program that was announced in the budget last week: the Community Building Partnership. This is a $35 million initiative to support local jobs, stimulate growth and improve community facilities. The cockles of my heart have been warmed by the bipartisan support for this budget, and particularly this program, the Community Building Partnership. Indeed, on 18 June Andrew Stoner welcomed the announcement of $400,000 for community building projects in his electorate—the first smart thing I have heard Andrew Stoner say in a long time.

The New South Wales Community Building Partnership will invest $300,000 in building local community projects in each of 93 New South Wales electoral districts and a further $100,000 in districts with higher unemployment. Under the partnership, the New South Wales Government will contribute to the cost of building important community projects. Other members have put out media releases supporting this important program and supporting the budget, including the member for Burrinjuck. I understand the member for Burrinjuck has been praising or describing as one of the bright spots of the budget the improvements to health services in Gundagai as well as the community building partnership. Numerous lower House members are supporting the budget and this important initiative. The member for Ballina, Don Page, has also come out encouraging people to participate in this program. The praise being heaped by the Opposition on this particular program in the budget is embarrassing.

There have been a few misunderstandings about the budget that I wish to clarify. Barry O'Farrell recently criticised us, saying that Kevin Rudd's contribution to New South Wales has masked up to an $8 billion surplus over the next four years. Then he went on to say there is no package to get us out of surplus. I know that the Leader of the Opposition cannot tell the difference between a surplus and a deficit. Let me explain it simply: We will be in deficit for two years, and then we go into surplus. The Hon. Greg Pearce and the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox might want to help Mr O'Farrell, but let me develop a bit more about the economic understanding of the Leader of the Opposition because I think it is important. When he was asked how much debt would he put the State into, do you know what his answer was? His answer was: How long is a piece of string?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Duncan Gay to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: How is that for an economic response? "How long is a piece of string?" was Barry O'Farrell's answer to the future of this State. He cannot tell a surplus from a deficit. He cannot tell you how much debt he is going to put the State in—it will be a piece of string. Then, of course, we have other important Coalition members like John Turner. John Turner has been in the paper recently saying that in fact he believes we do not need the triple-A credit rating of the State. So he is on the Barry O'Farrell piece of string debt strategy, but of course Michael Baird is out there saying it is an imperative—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: No Michael Costa?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, not Michael Costa, not a has-been, someone who sits on your side now pretending to know what he is talking about. The members opposite cannot tell the difference between a deficit and a surplus. They use pieces of string to measure their debt strategy. The Opposition is the laughing stock of all financial commentators.