Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2253 ..

MS TUCKER (6.56): I would like to respond to a couple of the comments Mrs Carnell made. It has been quite clear that we have been interested in looking at and discussing revenue raising possibilities with Mrs Carnell, but we have never been offered that discussion. Mrs Carnell has always said quite clearly that she is not interested in it; she does not want to see any increase in taxes and so on. I would like to get that clear straightaway. She knows that is quite clear. Obviously, we have supported Mr Moore on the bed tax, but I have given up talking about revenue raising in this place because Mrs Carnell always says, "We do not want any more taxes. We know you Greens do. We know you Greens are interested in taxes". We were interested in tax reform before the term was apparently even discussed here. Mrs Carnell has said quite clearly every year we have discussed this, "I am not interested in what you Greens say about taxes".

The other thing I find a bit concerning - in fact, very concerning - about what Mrs Carnell said is that she seems to be insinuating or implying that, because we are raising issues of concern in the community, representing our constituents, particularly representing constituents who are vulnerable and who are disadvantaged in this community, somehow this has no value because we cannot explain to her how to manage her budget and how to pay for it. We do not have the Office of Financial Management at our fingertips, we do not have the resources to do that; but it is our responsibility in this place to point out if members of this community are suffering, and they are. That is what I will continue to point out where I see it. I believe it is my responsibility to do that.

I have even heard that Mrs Carnell said to a constituent who went to see her, "You tell me how to pay for it and I will do it". That is not an acceptable answer, Mrs Carnell. That is a cop-out. That is a political answer that is quite disrespectful of the issues that are being raised in this place. I think it is perfectly legitimate that you should be looking at what we can do to meet these very critical needs. These are not luxuries that we are talking about. Mental health is not a luxury. Services for mentally ill people are critical, if you are meeting your responsibilities as the Government. We are talking about people with a disability. That is not a luxury. That is a basic responsibility, as, of course, we would always say is the environment that you need to be looking at.

Of course, there are issues about how you are going to develop a sustainable industry plan in the ACT to help raise revenue. Of course, we acknowledge the revenue problems that you have and the Commonwealth cuts that you have to deal with. But I do not think it is appropriate that you try to just totally devalue what is said from other places in this house because we do not tell you exactly how to do it. I repeat: We do not have Mr Lilley and Mr Ellis to advise us. We do not have full information.

Mrs Carnell: They can come and help you.

MS TUCKER: I am voting against the budget again because we have been irrelevant in this place. Mrs Carnell, you have said that we are irrelevant, and I will continue to protest at that lack of consultation coming from you on the matter of the budget. That is why we will vote against this budget. I maintain my right to do that. You saw today quite clearly that I will not just throw away government and cause instability for any light reason, but we will make that oppositional protest to you so that it is quite clear that we do not accept the role you have given us on the crossbenches in this place.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .