Page 6264 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We all know that businesses are finding it tough; that people are saying, "If I can avoid the amount of tax I have to pay, or if the law can be changed so that I do not have to pay this tax, that will help me". It might even have the benefit of retaining some people in work in the building industry. But this is not the right way to go about it. This will have a real effect on ACT revenues. Not only that; it has been introduced in a very incorrect fashion, in my view.
No matter what is going to happen here - I have said this to Mr Collaery already - the Residents Rally will get the flak out of this and, at the end of the day, from the part of the community that wants to see these provisions removed, the Liberal Party will get the credit. So, I cannot, for the life of me, understand what you are trying to achieve with this. It is a foolish amendment politically.
As I said, the Residents Rally will be put up as being, once again, the haphazards who do things on the fly, and the Liberal Party will get the credit for it. I do not understand why anybody in their right mind would do it this way. I am not making a personal attack on Mr Collaery or the other Residents Rally members; but, as often happens, I do not think they have thought through the implications of their actions. I do not support this private members' business. There should be no private members' business at all on today.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (7.03): Mr Speaker, in the 18 months that I have been a member of this Assembly I have seen the Residents Rally do some pretty strange and pretty silly things, but this takes the cake. In the dying minutes of the last sitting day, as the clock ticks past 7 o'clock, here we are debating a measure that Mr Collaery springs on us and that is going to cost the revenue at least $1m. That is the advice of our advisers; that is the word of the Treasurer and Chief Minister. If you do not believe the Treasurer and Chief Minister, it is the word of the Finance Minister in the Alliance Government who made the same inquiries.
So, here you are, voting on a proposal which is going to cost at least a million dollars, and it is incumbent upon any of you members who vote for this to tell us where the money should come from. Should it come out of the police budget, Mr Stefaniak? Should we take another million dollars out of there? Ms Maher is probably too sensible to vote for this. Should this come out of the welfare budget? Mr Collaery is always wearing the heart on the sleeve about welfare and is always calling for me to put more money into the welfare budget. Should the Chief Minister take the million dollars out of my welfare budget, Mr Collaery?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .