Page 3111 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Pratt: Why do you call it a fire levy? Why don’t you just call it a blood tax?
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, Mr Pratt!
Mr Barr: The tax you now support.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Barr!
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
MR SMYTH: Yet again, this is an example of the poor management of the Stanhope government. We have seen the examples that are now littered through this year’s budget. Yesterday the Chief Minister tried to tell us that his beds for acute care, for instance, had costed at $150,000.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Come to the subject matter of the question. That is not relevant to this debate.
MR SMYTH: Of course it is, Mr Speaker. It is about the budget figures. We have now got a 100 per cent increase equalling a 140 per cent increase because of CPI, WPI and AWE. The problem here is that the minister has no credibility. He has had no consultation; he has very poor maths skills. There is no substantiation or justification for the increase. In fact, the increase breaks the promise from the 2005-06 budget that the fees would go up by only 100 per cent.
On that basis, this disallowance motion should be agreed to by all members in this place; and on that basis the government should fess up that it got it wrong. It has simply adopted the Ted Quinlan approach of “squeeze them until they bleed but are not quite dead”. It should come back to business and say, “We got this wrong. We apologise.” If you want to bring back a disallowable instrument to make it 100 per cent, as you promised, I am sure that people would understand that, but people do not deserve to be lumped with a 100 per cent increase in three years in the first place.
I ask members to vote in favour of this disallowance motion—first, to keep the government honest; second, to keep the government to its commitments; and third, to give business—ultimately, small business—in this territory a fair go. We have a Chief Minister who several times in the last couple of months has lamented the poor tax base that he has. He is putting increased imposts on a very narrow base. This is very foolish. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Stefaniak, pointed out, a slight downturn can have a dramatic impact on investment, jobs and, indeed, the revenue that you receive.
On all counts, this motion should get up; on all counts, this motion should be supported by all members in this place; and on all counts, the government should go back and give Mr Hargreaves a lesson in elementary maths as to what 100 per cent actually does. And 100 per cent does not equal a 140 per cent increase if you are simply doubling the base.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .