Page 3211 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I point out to members the advice I have, which is that heating oil is not the same as diesel fuel. In relation to heating oil, the Government has taken no action whatsoever. We do not tax it. In relation to diesel fuel used for home heating, my advice is that there are a very small number of Canberra homes that use diesel fuel for home heating. Where those homes are inhabited by pensioners or health care card holders, they will continue to get the benefit of a concession. I want to make that quite clear, Madam Speaker. The reason I raise it at this point is that the information that has been put out publicly is quite inaccurate and will lead to concern by members of the community, who need not have that concern. If they are heating their homes with heating oil, they are unaffected by this budget.
MR MOORE (3.31): Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that I should follow people talking about inaccuracies. I was going to start my speech by drawing attention to an inaccuracy on the front of the document headed "1993-94 Budget: Protecting Canberra's Future". I have corrected my version and put a question mark where it belongs, at the end of "Protecting Canberra's Future".
The question most of us wish to assess in the initial instance is: Is this a social justice budget? On the positive side, the Chief Minister has been very thoughtful in providing a statement for us, Towards a Social Justice Budget Statement, which probably should have had a question mark there as well. Certainly it is very convenient in that it defines what social justice is, for some people who do not understand it. It would appear to me that there are some very positive initiatives outlined in that social justice package. They are very small initiatives, but they are positive. If you add it up, $1.6m towards some employment opportunities is a very small amount of money when you consider that most people identify unemployment as the major problem in our society at the moment. There are some quite important health initiatives associated with the mentally ill, and also other initiatives directed at violence in relation to women and children.
On the negative side, I would like to go back to the arguments Labor put against the GST. They were very strident in their criticisms of the GST in terms of its being a regressive taxation system, and indeed I agree wholeheartedly. I oppose the GST for those reasons. It is ironic - in fact, it is getting very close to hypocrisy - therefore, for this Government to use exactly the same system to raise $5m through the same regressive taxation on goods and services through ACTEW. That is what we have done: There is an extra $5m coming through ACTEW under a taxation system.
If you look at their definition of social justice and where it is directed, and if you also take into account Labor's arguments at the Federal election - and we heard the same arguments from this team of people just here - you would clearly say that either they do not understand the significance of regressive taxation or they simply accept it or they think it is a good idea and they have decided that the Federal election argument was all just words.
On the negative side, Mrs Carnell has elaborately pointed out the ramifications as far as employment goes, so I do not intend to review those. In education, the whole concept of "Protecting Canberra's Future" - question mark - has to be questioned when you look at a $3.4m cut. On budget day I did a phone around to a half-dozen or so primary schools - in fact, it was my staff who did it for me, and a good job they did, too - and asked: Of Years 4, 5 and 6, what are your biggest classes? Of those six schools, five had classes over 30.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .