Page 839 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am not resiling from the business of raising taxes, and I have made quite clear that I know that you have that responsibility. What I am saying is that doing it through a flat rate tax is doing the very thing your party federally has argued so strongly against in regard to Fightback. So be consistent, accept the amendment I have moved to the motion, back off the notion of flat rate taxation, and allow us to go to the toilet more than three times a day.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.41): Madam Speaker, in a sense this is a continuation of the debate on the matter of public importance. My comments will be directed both to that matter of public importance in some respects, because it dealt with the problem of micro-economic reform, and to the motion that is now before the Assembly and Mr Moore's amendment to it.
Micro-economic reform is about using fewer resources in what government does and in what the community consumes. It is not only to do with things that government does; it is also to do with things that the private sector does, and the relationship between the public and private sectors. The bottom line is that there is always going to be a consumption of resources. People will use water; they will use sewerage; they will use electricity; and a fair and reasonable charge goes with that. The motion moved by Mr Westende recognises that from year to year the cost of providing those services does increase. You can argue whether the CPI factor is a good measure of the change; but I would argue that anybody who provides a service is entitled to collect the cost of delivering that service, and if the cost increases they should raise their levies accordingly.
I agree very much in principle with the kinds of things Mr Moore is saying. If this community believes that maintenance of the environment is a good thing, let us put a price tag on it and let us collect a specific tax for that purpose. Do not obscure it in the operating costs of a corporate body. That is what this purports to do. These price increases purport to say to the community, "You are not only going to pay for the service we deliver; you are also going to be compulsorily levied a fee to maintain the environment". I do not believe that that is a logical or sensible way to go about it.
If the Government, in all fairness, believes that it has a duty to maintain our environment, let it say to the community, "In order to do so, we have to raise this specific tax; you have to pay for it". There would be no doubt in people's minds what they were paying for. There would be no doubt about the price they were incurring in maintaining the environment; or in keeping a bus service running; or in providing any other sort of service that it is the obligation of government to provide. To that extent I think Mr Moore and I are agreed. The only problem is how one goes about this.
Mr Connolly: That is a worry.
MR KAINE: It is a bit of a worry, Mr Berry.
Mr Berry: I did not say it.
MR KAINE: It was Mr Connolly, was it? My apologies, Mr Berry. I would hate to misrepresent your view. I do wonder sometimes whether Mr Connolly really knows what he is talking about. He was talking earlier about running a business. I doubt that Mr Connolly has even one jot of experience in running a business, so how he can purport to speak here for businessmen and how they run their businesses and how they make their business decisions I cannot imagine.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .