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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3054 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

this MPI, and I will not go into detail as we are going to have a fuller and better informed debate. I do not feel I am fully informed today, because we did not have much notice for this MPI.

Concerning this claim in the MPI that the ACT has a high and rising tax burden, the submission to the revenue inquiry from government seems to indicate that at least the "high"question is a bit debatable. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on general revenue for 2002, the ACT ranked fourth out of the eight states and territories in "revenue raising effort", as it is termed.

The ACT revenue raising is above average, but it is the lowest of the five jurisdictions that are above the average on this score, so it was not high-at least, not on those 2002 figures. The ACT's ranking on stamp duty on conveyances at that time was 96.99 per cent. That is below the national average and is the third lowest of the jurisdictions.

What I want to talk about more today is the equity of the revenue base and whether the revenue is sufficient to meet the needs of the community. That, of course, always has to be part of any discussion about revenue. Many surveys have been done to determine what people are happy to pay and what they would like to see the money spent on. I do not have the details of those here.

Something has come out quite recently reinforcing the idea that people are comfortable about paying higher taxes if they have confidence in how the government is spending that money, particularly if it is going into things such as health and education. According to the desires and values of most people in the community, those are always underfunded by all governments.

I know the Liberals, and others, believe in small government and that the market will provide, but the evidence has not supported that. Even though there is enough of that evidence for it not to be even debated any more, there is still an ideological commitment to it by conservative governments and people around the world.

In fact, a smaller percentage of the population is becoming more wealthy, the trickle-down effect has not worked and a larger and growing percentage of the population lives in poverty or is suffering disadvantage. If we care about having an equitable society-one in which everyone has a reasonably equal opportunity to participate in society, receive good education and health care and have quality of life-we have to look at redistributing wealth in some way. That is what revenue and taxation is about.

I hear what Mr Smyth and his colleagues are saying, but I also often hear them say in this place that the Labor government is failing because it is not caring for vulnerable people or children at risk. Mrs Dunne spoke passionately about that at one point-also Mr Smyth on social issues on occasions. If you talk about removing the capacity for the recurrent funding of essential services, you also have to tell us where you think we do not need to spend money. Is it health care, homelessness, mental health, disability services, education, environmental protection, the aged, nurses? We need to hear that as part of this discussion as well.

MS DUNDAS (4.38): We are meant to be discussing the high and rising tax burden this government is placing on the people of Canberra, but all I have heard today from the

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