Page 4966 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that the 2.3 per cent of the gross national product spent on defence is far too low, be it a Liberal government or a Labor government doing that. Both parties suggested about six years ago that 3 per cent was about ideal, and I think that is probably accurate. We do not live in a very safe world, despite the changes in East-West relationships, and I will not go any further into that. I want to restate to Mr Connolly that I have not changed my position in relation to defence. I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Labor government: If they cut defence when they should not, they are doing the wrong thing, in my view.
As for the rest of the tax package and the proposals by Dr Hewson, I say to Mr Connolly that some of those proposals, especially in the area of business, are quite revolutionary and will be wonderful in terms of regenerating the Australian economy.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stefaniak, relevance, please.
Mr Berry: Ask the pensioners.
MR STEFANIAK: I think that even the pensioners do reasonably well out of it. It has been a pretty good tax package.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Let us get back to the debate.
MR STEFANIAK: Getting back to the main point, Mr Speaker, it seems that Mr Connolly has virtually accepted my amendment, and I would expect him to vote for it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.15): I should clarify one point. Mr Stefaniak said that he has had some information today that the police shopfronts are in trouble. My statement really harks back to some weeks ago. The Government is not 20 minutes behind Mr Stefaniak's amendment; it is about six weeks in front of it. When we were discussing at the Estimates Committee hearings the way savings could be achieved, it was put that the shopfront proposal was really not looking a goer because of long-term lease commitments and all the rest of it. That was the last information I had. If something has changed in that time and I have not been made aware of it, I would reserve my position to that extent. I will investigate the position and advise Mr Stefaniak over the next day or so.
At the moment, the main focus is on the Aidex exercise. I am heartened by the comments of both Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Nolan that additional police costing is a national government responsibility. As Mr Stefaniak indicated, Aidex could be costing the Canberra taxpayer around $300,000. One of the reasons why we did not want Aidex was that it would cost more to police than it would generate in revenue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .