Page 3110 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
add up. He has hidden behind the excuse that it is 100 per cent plus CPI, but the explanatory statement for this says: “This increase”—the third increase—“is part of a program to increase these fees by 100% over three years.” It does not mention CPI, WPI or AWE.
We have a minister who has been caught out. This is classic John Hargreaves again: “I am caught, so what will I do? I will just dig myself deeper. I can look like a bigger goose than I really am. The justification is that the scheme is successful because everybody joined. I forgot to mention CPI.” But if we go back to the CPI for the last three years, it has been 2.3 per cent, 3.5 per cent and three per cent. According to Mr Hargreaves, if you add up 2.3, 3.5 and three per cent, that equals 39. That is what he is saying: “The increase over and above the 100 per cent was CPI, and that is 39 per cent in the last three years.” He is just wrong.
This is the most ludicrous piece of mathematics that anybody has ever seen. I note that the minister for education has joined us, Mr Speaker. Perhaps he could take Mr Hargreaves aside. Perhaps Mr Hargreaves could do some of those year 5 or year 7 literacy and numeracy tests—to see what 2.3, 3.5 and three add up to. Mr Hargreaves, it is not 39 per cent.
This is the minister who is making it up as he goes. When he is really caught out, what does he do? He reverts to form. He just verbals somebody. We have said, “Don’t put this increase in.” He reads that as “Mr Mulcahy is going to get rid of this tax.” That is how this government operates. When they are worried, when they are scared, they just make things up. That is what happening here.
Business is asking that you simply keep your word. There was no consultation. To suggest that you sat down and the chamber of commerce made a suggestion that it be put in over three years—that is not consultation; that is implementation. It was a fait accompli. They were simply told, “You get this 100 per cent.” Industry said, “Can we ameliorate the impact of this by phasing it in over three years, because we think it is unfair?” The government agreed to that. But to portray that any business group in this city actually wanted a 100 per cent increase—or, indeed, a 139 per cent increase—in a tax—you are just deluding yourself; you are just fooling yourself.
The motion is about keeping your word. Businesses make their plans; they work out what their commitments are. They like to know in advance what they are paying so that they can factor it into their plans. If you had said that it would be 100 per cent over three years, businesses would have gone away and put that 100 per cent into their business plans. If it comes back at 140 per cent, clearly everything is blown out of the water. And you do this against a background where this increase is unnecessary, given the huge amounts of extra cash that this government is rolling in through its rapacious property taxes, its fire levy, its utilities tax, the increases to the water abstraction charges and all the other rates and charges that have gone up under the Stanhope government. I remember the—
Mr Barr: What is the Liberal Party’s position on the fire levy now? You are supporting it.
MR SMYTH: You would remember this, Mr Speaker—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .