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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 388 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I can well understand why Mr Beazley rolled up to Burnie and told the state and territory Labor leaders, many of whom are in government, "We are not going to affect your access to that money". I can understand why he took that decision. What he did not explain to the leaders in Burnie - at least not publicly to the rest of the community about what was said to the leaders in Burnie - was how he was going to preserve the other components of this equation and keep his promise.

How is he going to deliver the tax cuts amounting to I think about $47 a week to every taxpayer? How is he going to deliver on that promise to the Australian community if he is rolling back the GST but preserving the effect on States and Territories in terms of a benefit to their budgets? How is he going to do that?

Quite rightly, Mr Beazley has been attacked and condemned by most sides of politics and by most commentators because of the uncertainty he has created in this debate. He knows, the Labor Party knows and everybody who has looked at this issue with any depth knows that the main beneficiaries of the goods and services tax are the States and Territories. This is the level of government to which most of those essential services are delivered - services that matter to people in the community, such as whether their school has enough equipment to be able to provide their children with the right kind of education; whether hospitals have the machines that will provide lifesaving assistance; and whether the police have enough numbers to be able to keep the community safe. That is where this money is going to go. That is where the GST is going to make an impact and that is why the GST is supported by this Government. There is no question or doubt about it; it is on the record. It is supported by this Government because it means an awful lot to this community over the next 10 years and in the years to follow.

As Mr Hird has said, the annual estimated growth rate in this tax - revenue which goes to the States and Territories - is 3 to 4 per cent per annum in real terms. This is compared with a 1.3 per cent growth in financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth in the last few years. We have heard all sorts of diversions and furphies from the Labor Opposition in the debate today. We have heard, "Oh, the money can't be counted upon because it's only loans; it's not actual grants to the States and Territories".

I was accused of not having discussed this issue before in this place. I have discussed this issue. I have made it perfectly clear that these are the sorts of loans any of us would like to receive in our daily lives if we could get access to them - a loan which has no interest rate and which is repaid by the lender, not the borrower, a year after it is made. It sounds pretty good to me. I will have one of those any day you are offering one. If one is going, I will have one, please.

I was struck by the comment by Mr Stanhope that the Prime Minister said he would never ever introduce a GST and therefore he cannot be trusted to keep his promise on other things to do with the GST. We all know that the Prime Minister went to the last Federal election and put his promise on the table. He amplified and explained in considerable detail how he was going to introduce and implement a GST in this country. He won that election and now proposes to carry out the promise that he made to the Australian community.

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