Page 2322 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the fact that the members of the opposition on it, Mr Seselja and I, took the task quite seriously.
The time afforded the Assembly to review the government’s budget is very limited. One would like more time. Certainly, it would be desirable to have more resources available. Notwithstanding that, the process was a revelation. I do not think a day passed when some new facet did not emerge about some ill-considered decisions that do impact on the bottom line of the budget. I was deeply troubled, and remain deeply troubled, over the revelations of the fringe benefits tax arrangements in Mr Corbell’s department. It remains unclear as to how much of this initiative was the doing of the head of his department, Dr Sherbon, because he indicated that he had moved without conferring with the minister. I am troubled in relation to the 4,000 or so employees—
Mr Corbell: What a beat-up, an absolute beat-up!
MR MULCAHY: The Minister for Health says that it was a beat-up. I hope that his words will be remembered. It has been described as a beat-up and time will tell whether it was a beat-up or whether there will be significant issues emerging. But it does trouble members of the committee. We need transparency in the taxation arrangements impacting on government departments. When nearly a quarter of our entire public sector is provided with a new taxation arrangement, taking advantage of a loophole that they have looked for in the current fringe benefits tax arrangements, then I think we have cause to be disturbed.
Government should not embark on high-risk ventures, taxation schemes and the like. If they were undertaken in the private sector without reference to the tax office, I am quite sure that members opposite would be scathing in their criticism of those sorts of things. We hear cries about big business rorting the system and so forth. I have no sympathy for companies that engage in deceptive arrangements, tax avoidance mechanism or tax evasion. Be it on their own heads if they do so. But I think it is incumbent upon government to ensure that its affairs are conducted in accordance with the requirements under commonwealth law for taxation and not seek to transfer the cost of labour to the commonwealth.
Mr Corbell: Are you suggesting they are not?
MR MULCAHY: Certainly, there is some considerable doubt existing over those arrangements in terms of what is being embarked upon.
Mr Corbell: No, you won’t say that. You just make the allegation. You just make the snide allegation.
MR MULCAHY: It is not a snide allegation. We will see what emerges.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mulcahy has the floor.
MR MULCAHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the time remaining I will confine my remarks primarily to both the main report and to the dissenting report. There are issues that we continue to remain concerned about. The water abstraction charge legal advice is one. Some of it has been forthcoming, but I believe that there was more that we expected
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .