Page 3405 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which of his initiatives we would not implement. If we had stuffed things up as badly as he did, at least it would be our stuff up. But what he is saying is, “Here, I’ve made a mess of it. My colleagues and my predecessor before me have made a mess. We can’t control our spending,” then, suddenly, they want us to pick and choose between a few of their little cherries at the end of the process. We will not do that, because under a Liberal government you would have a better regime.
I am proud to say that I worked for a Liberal government; I worked for a Liberal treasurer who imposed taxes which he did not want to impose because the financial circumstances were such that at the time they had to be done. But as soon as we got to good times, we saw those taxes disappear. We saw the fire and emergency services levy introduced, and when it had raised the amount of revenue that the government sought, it took it away. It also reduced registration on vehicles, and there were tax cuts when there was a capacity to do it. Yesterday, we saw $100 million worth of expenditure. What we are saying here today is give some of that back to the people who provided that money in the first place.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.45), in reply: I thank my colleagues for their support of this initiative. Whilst I have found the rationale and the ultimate wish a little curious, I do appreciate that Dr Foskey is supporting this bill, although I suspect our ultimate interests differ somewhat.
I have been forced to introduce this bill to the Assembly because our appeals to the government on this issue have fallen on deaf ears. It has, therefore, fallen to the opposition to take action on the increasing levels of taxation in the ACT, and at least force the ACT government to confront this matter.
I was absolutely bewildered—and I refrained from interjecting, Mr Speaker, because I think I am on a warning—at the nonsense that the Chief Minister trotted out to justify why we cannot consider tax reductions. He sits there, and every time someone says to cut spending or to exercise a modicum of restraint or to lower taxes, he always says how many fewer patients will receive services as a result. He has compared the $17 million that this reform would deliver to providing services for 3,500 patients. I ask Mr Stanhope this: how many patients does the arboretum, the ill-conceived bus way from his friend, Mr Corbell, the percent for art scheme or the scrapping of FireLink cost? How much are those ill-conceived ideas costing us in terms of essential services and core delivery?
This is about priorities and efficient management of government. Yes, I do not retreat from the position that tax reform and tax reductions have to form an essential and key part of any budget process. But it does not mean that you abandon all services in government. What we are about in the ACT opposition is delivering more competent and more efficient management. What we would be seeking to do here is to contain the level of taxation in buoyant times to ensure that we can maintain good services but let the people of Canberra share in the prosperity that is available in our community.
We hear this nonsense saying, “Well, what does it matter? People have got money in their pockets. The average incomes are high.” I still have in my mind a very clear broadcast I heard in the previous school holidays. I was driving my kids up to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .