Page 829 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
With that $25 levy, we now have a sustainable basis to pay for the improvements needed in order to ensure that the quality of the output of water from this Territory remains the best in the country. This is a responsible attitude for government to take. If you people say that we should not have that charge, what you are saying is that we should not be worrying about the quality of the environment, we should be doing what the New South Wales Government have done: Forget about it, and just pour the effluent into the sea or into the river. If you say that we should not have that $25 charge, how are you going to pay for this report? How are you going to ensure that the quality of output remains appropriate?
MR MOORE (4.03): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate. I had prepared a notice of motion for tomorrow with very similar wording to what has been foreshadowed by Mr Westende. Should it be necessary to use a little more time, I look forward to participating in that debate as well, although I believe that we may be able to manage to have just a single say.
My commitment on financial support for a minority government was simply that I would support their budget specifically in the Supply and Appropriation Bills, and I made that specific guarantee time and time again. Therefore, I guess it came as some surprise when, on 28 May, I read in the paper that sewerage, water and power costs had gone up.
Mr Kaine: That was community consultation, Michael: Read about it in the paper.
MR MOORE: I will let that interjection stand. It seems to me that the logical thing would have been to say to me, "Hey, Michael, we are interested in using a backdoor method".
Mr Connolly: You were under a palm tree in Brisbane. We could not get you.
MR MOORE: That is quite right. The logical thing would have been to say to me, "Hey, Michael, we have this backdoor method of taxation. We want to introduce a flat rate tax, the same as the GST, and we are hoping that you will support it. What we are going to do, basically, is lift electricity and water costs, along with sewerage costs. How do you feel about that?". I would have said, "You understand, of course, that I have not given support in this area, because I have not guaranteed support for anything other than the Supply and Appropriation Bills".
However, having read it, I was absolutely surprised, and I was even more surprised when I heard Mr Connolly's speech, given with such enthusiasm - a speech that would do justice to the GST. I really believed that what I was hearing was Mr Connolly going full on on Fightback. Every single argument Mr Connolly used supported Fightback, and that makes me a little concerned about the right wing of the Labor Party. I remember that it was Mr Keating, when he was Treasurer, who suggested the idea initially for a flat rate tax. When you use a backdoor method of taxation in the way that is being proposed here you have two major disadvantages. Firstly, you have a flat rate tax. That is something I perceive as a disadvantage, and I will explain why in a minute. It is something the Liberals would perceive, I believe, as an advantage, as far as that goes. The second disadvantage of going through the back door is just that: People feel that there is something wily going on to elicit money from them that is not upfront - and it is not upfront.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .