Page 1858 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a disappointment that I know is shared by all Australians. Madam Speaker, another disappointment is the news of the loss of the CSIRO. I am given to understand now that not all of the headquarters of the CSIRO is to go - just the chairman and her support staff, or his support staff, as the case may be if it changes. That brings me to the Industry Commission, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that somewhere along the line the Federal Government is losing the plot as far as the role of the Australian national capital is concerned. It seems to me that the movement of the Industry Commission to Melbourne is a retrograde step. If it is to move anywhere, why not New South Wales? Industries, more and more, are moving their centres to Sydney. The point is that, if there is debate as to whether the Industry Commission should go to Sydney or to Melbourne, then quite clearly there ought be no debate at all; it should remain here. One cannot help wondering what deals have been done, what negotiations have been carried out, in order to have the Industry Commission moved to Melbourne.
One of the positive effects on employment from last night's package will be the development of York Park. But at what price? There is no doubt that the development of York Park and the movement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to York Park will be of great benefit to the people of the ACT. In planning terms we really need to ensure that such developments take place either in Tuggeranong or in the new city of Gungahlin. The one proviso I put on that, Madam Speaker, is that this particular department probably has a better claim than almost any other department to be located as close as possible to the centre of Canberra, and to the embassy precinct and Parliament House. But one cannot help saying what a great shame it is and wondering why other departments could not have had the preference for building projects to take place where they are most needed for the planning and the nature of Canberra. However, that is not to undermine the positive effect that the development of that building in York Park will have on employment in the ACT, particularly in the construction industry.
Madam Speaker, with reference to this budget, I think the next main question that comes to the minds of most of us is: Who is going to pay, and when? It seems to me that unless our taxes rise and unless we get a significant growth in our economy - enough commentators have made this point - we will have to start paying for this budget in four or five years' time. It also seems to me that, if we need to resolve our employment problems now, it is appropriate to take those steps; but we also have to work out the price. When should the taxes start hitting, how hard should they hit, and, more importantly, where should they hit? For most of us, they should be hitting the very wealthy who often are not paying any taxes in Australia. We have seen a number of programs on some of the wealthiest businessmen in Australia who are simply leeches feasting on the people of Australia. Perhaps they see themselves as providing jobs for the people of Australia. Whilst they do provide some jobs, and quite a number of jobs, often it is at the price of their getting more and more wealthy, as people like Mr Packer do, and winding up paying basically no taxes. That is unacceptable.
A movement towards land tax, as has happened in the ACT, will help to resolve this problem and will provide a method by which we can tax the very wealthy at the capital end of their wealth, an area from which they cannot move. Such taxes are relatively easy to collect and require relatively small bureaucracies. What we really need in the next few years is a method of taxing these very wealthy people. Then we will see the structural change and the social reform to which Mr Lamont refers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .