Page 2602 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I know Mr Smyth is very fond of quoting aspects of my normal speech. I notice that he always stops short of the full quote, though, where I do go on to indicate, following the area that he did quote me, that those views are, indeed, economically correct but politically would be somewhat courageous. I think I went so far in my normal speech to use an analogy with a very popular television program at the time Yes, Minister, where indeed Sir Humphrey Appleby would describe the views as courageous. And, yes, I am under no illusion at all that the political reality in this country is that this issue was decided some time ago. To make a significant change in taxation arrangements in relation to family homes is, of course, something that is not politically feasible. However, on economic grounds, there is no doubt that the distortionary nature of the taxation arrangements that have been in place in this country for a considerable period of time have had an impact on housing affordability.
For all of us in politics to be honest about the true economic realities in relation to housing affordability, we have to acknowledge—as those opposite want to talk extensively about tax matters in some areas but, of course, ridicule what is indeed economically correct—that the absence of taxes in certain areas has distorted economic behaviour and economic activity over a very long period of time and has, in fact, meant that we have inflated the price of a family home to the detriment of first home owners. The political reality is that people who are in home ownership, who have either paid off their home or are in the process of doing so, significantly outnumber the number of people who are looking to enter the market. The political reality is that making the sorts of sweeping economic changes needed to address the gamut of housing affordability issues—
Mr Mulcahy: Would cost you your seat.
MR BARR: Indeed—would be politically unfeasible. That is just a reality. However, to be lectured by those opposite—particularly by Mr Mulcahy in his speech about the need to reform the delivery of government services to be more efficient—given the campaigns and the attitudes that they have displayed to every attempt in my portfolios to address just those issues since I have been minister, begs credibility; it is not credulous. I know that no-one on the opposition side pays much attention to what Mr Mulcahy says. They ought to, because if they ever happen to be in a government with him, then I pity Mr Mulcahy in the end because he will be outnumbered. He is not the leader at the moment as his colleagues do not support his views.
For Mr Mulcahy to get up and talk about the need for reforms on the expenditure side of the budget, and then to listen to the litany of individual examples where his colleagues seek to oppose every meaningful structural reform that this government has put forward, really does put a lie to the fundamental philosophical position that the Liberal Party tries to put in this place. It really is just fanciful.
Mr Smyth’s first initiative in tourism would be to put a million dollars back into administration by re-establishing a statutory authority and all of the associated administrative requirements that would go with that. Fundamentally, if you went to the tourism industry and said, “Where would you like the next million dollars of expenditure in tourism to occur?” it certainly would not be in administration, Mr Smyth. But you go ahead with that policy—that is terrific; good on you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .