Page 1955 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Canberra’s inequitably large ecological footprint would be that much less. Why not force ActewAGL to set up the mechanisms and give credits for energy put back into the grid from partially subsidised photovoltaic cells on Canberra rooftops?
Professor Andrew Blakers had an excellent scheme regarding that but, due to a misunderstanding on the part of the government, his proposal was rejected out of hand. Why not at least look into all these things? There is no good reason why not. I have not even started on what I would like to see apply to business property owners, but be assured that a surrogate carbon tax and habitability index would be part of the mix.
Landlords can only continue to pass on increased costs directly if there is a level rates playing field. I say tilt the playing field, move the goalposts, give the market a clear signal as to where you want it to go, and it will meet you there. Builders would include these features in new housing because it would make their DAs less expensive and because they know that investors and homeowners would want them and pay a premium for them.
The government has abandoned the CPI as a basis for rates increases. I suspect that moving onto the wage price index may be too greedy. Moving off the CPI will impact unfairly on the unemployed, whose commonwealth benefits are not even indexed to the lowest CPI amount, so I hope that the concessional rate rebates will be calculated to compensate for that, and the same goes for age pensioners.
One measure which would save revenue, increase equity and lead to an overall sum of happiness in the community would be to stop awarding pay rises on a straight percentage basis. The multiplier effect is much greater when money flows to people with lower disposable incomes. It also results in a greater velocity of money, which generates more wealth.
Percentage-based wage increases exacerbate existing income inequalities and lead to greater social discontent. The Australia Institute, among others, has done good research on how, once a certain income level is reached, happiness is more dependent on one’s comparative wealth rather than actual wealth. The strongest predictor of happiness is the strength of personal relationships. That is why triple bottom line accounting makes so much sense, if quality of life is what we are aiming at.
Moving land sales to the capital account is a sensible idea. Land is capital, as is clean air, potable water, reasonably quiet suburbs, the view of stars at night, parkland and healthy natural ecosystems within our nature reserves. I am concerned that this budget has focused on increasing revenue while failing to quarantine vitally important social and environmental programs. We could have found the money to maintain these programs. For instance, the Chief Minister’s public relations budget could have been held down to informing the community rather than to promoting the government. I think the government has betrayed its true believers with this budget, while pleasing organisations such as Standard and Poor’s which are not personally affected by the swinging cuts into community capital.
No, we cannot price these proposals. We do not have the resources. And you cannot steal our policies, either, because we offer them to you free of charge. Results are what we are after. Have these proposals costed. You can take our good ideas and laugh at our fiscal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .