Page 1585 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In connection with that matter, Madam Speaker, we should broaden the issue because the building industry, the housing industry, does not operate in isolation. It is a part of a bigger industry which I suppose we could call, in an all-embracing term, the construction industry. Whether or not there is a continuing industry of housing with some stability in it depends also on what is going on outside of it because there is a work force which flows backwards and forwards. If there is no work in the construction industry - that is, building big office blocks, roads, bridges and the like - subcontractors, who are carpenters, electricians, plumbers, concreters and the like, tend to migrate to the housing industry. Suppliers of raw materials, electrical appliances and the like do the same thing. There has been an interchange for fabricators who put together things like window frames, roof trusses and the like. So, you cannot divorce the broader industry from this small element of it which you might call the housing industry. What the Government does about stimulating the whole industry reflects in whether or not you have a stable, productive and viable housing industry. It does not just sit there in isolation from everything else.
Madam Speaker, I have only one other comment that I would like to make. Today two Ministers have talked about the Fightback program and the effect.
Mr Lamont: The "frightpack".
MR KAINE: No; I can spell it, and I understand it. Mr Connolly talked about the increasing costs in connection with the building industry because of the GST. He needs to understand that, before the 15 per cent GST is added to the costs of the building industry, other taxes will be removed. I will quote only three - the wholesale sales taxes, the petrol franchise tax and payroll tax. When you add those up and take out those taxes, and then add a 15 per cent GST, you will see a massive net reduction in the imposition of taxes, which must result in a lesser, not an increased, cost.
So, when Mr Berry pretends to interpret the Fightback program, firstly, he ought to read it and, secondly, he ought to represent it honestly, not in some biased fashion. When he and Mr Connolly start talking about the resultant cost, they have to acknowledge the fact that there will be a massive reduction across the board in all forms of taxation, including, I might add, personal income tax. So you both will be better off under the Fightback program. Apart from the fact that your houses will cost less and everything else that you buy will, in the end, cost less, your income tax will be less as well. You will all be better off. Let us have an honest presentation of these facts, Madam Speaker.
MR WESTENDE (4.02): Madam Speaker, this morning we had a very interesting and, I think, positive debate about urban renewal. The matter that is now before us is not unrelated to that earlier debate. Mr Stevenson raised an important question, and it is deserving of some very serious consideration. Whereas this morning's discussion was about objectives and goals, this afternoon's discussion is perhaps more about what we can do to achieve those objectives. The more we grasp the great possibilities that lie before us, the more urgent it becomes to take action. The building industry, obviously, has a significant role to play in achieving the desired result of urban renewal or urban development - that is, good design, efficient use of materials, understanding of new building techniques, high standards of finish, environmentally friendly, energy efficient and socially acceptable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .