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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3238 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

like the BAD tax. They have opposed a number of the approaches that the Government has taken to raising extra revenue. They have not put up one new idea on how they would raise revenue. They said that they would not go down the path of a BAD tax, a tax which produced millions of dollars extra for the ACT. They said that they would not go down the path of bringing pensioner rebates in line with those of other States. They have gone down a shopping list of extra things like this that they would spend money on, but so far they have not told us one area they would get more money from.

If they cannot get more money, the Commonwealth is giving us less and we are already taxing at the same rates as other States, I think Mr Moore's question is a very valid one. Where would you get the money from, Mr Berry? Where would the $4.2m in a full year actually come from? Would it be from a bed tax? Maybe it would be. Maybe those opposite will implement a bed tax. We certainly will not. We do not believe that that is possible, but those opposite have yet to say that they will not do that. Mr Moore has put a good argument on the table. If those opposite can come up with a way that they would raise $4.2m in extra revenue from taxpayers - it does not come from anywhere else - maybe then we can look at it a little bit more sensibly; but they have not done that. They have told us a lot of areas where they would not raise as much revenue as the ACT Government is raising. They have told us lots of areas they would spend more money in, but nowhere that they would get extra dollars from.

The approach that the Government has already taken with regard to the implementation of the SACS award balances our budgetary situation in Canberra with fairness and equity and ensures, as we say in the amendment that I will move at the appropriate time, that no organisation will be unduly disadvantaged. It is an appropriate approach under the circumstances. It is about balance. It would be lovely to have a money tree. It would be lovely just to run out there and say, "Whatever you would like is fine". Some organisations have a significantly higher need than others. Our approach makes sure that those with significantly higher needs are treated in a fairer way than those with needs that might be significantly less.

If we end up with an agreement in this place that the Government will come in and supplement, with no questions asked, any increase in costs that a non-government organisation has, then I think we are putting ourselves into an extremely invidious situation. I do not believe any government or any Assembly can sign off something that is uncapped. The approach we are taking is capped, is fair and is appropriate.

MS TUCKER (4.01): The Greens will be supporting this motion, although we will be supporting one of the amendments to be moved by Mrs Carnell.

Mr Berry: You have not heard my argument yet. I thought you would listen to my argument.

MS TUCKER: Mr Berry interjects that I have not listened to his argument. I will listen to his argument, but at this point this is how I feel. We have been concerned about the Government's failure to come up with a strategy for funding the SACS award in the ACT for over two years now, ever since the first budget.

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