Page 1638 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a large level of new expenditure for events, and it is difficult to see why the government is contributing in such a comprehensive way to events that are specific to certain sporting organisations or other bodies. The question is not whether these events are good fun; of course they are. I would love to go to a rugby league world cup match here in Canberra. I am sure Mr Stefaniak would be in the front row. The question is not whether they are good fun. The relevant question, however, is whether or not the need for funding of all of these events is sufficiently pressing that it should trump proposals for much-needed tax reform.
I go to shopping centres and talk to people in the community who are trying to cope with increasing grocery bills each week. They ask how they can meet the costs of their family food bill. I say to them, “Bad luck. We are going to splash the cash; we are going to have good times; and we will have signs up and down Northbourne Avenue and Yamba Drive proclaiming every community day that comes along.”
I am sorry but I do not think that those things are easy to defend when people are struggling from a raft of new taxes that came in only two years ago, ostensibly because the territory was facing difficulties. Indeed, such is the level of festivity with taxpayer money that one is reminded of the Roman poet Juvenal, who famously lamented that the people of Rome had sold their political freedom for bread and circuses.
These expenditure initiatives give us several examples of areas which the government has prioritised ahead of much-needed tax reform. It is not an exhaustive list but merely some examples to show that there is, in fact, fat in the ACT budget; there is spending that is not focusing on core services. Constantly when we have made the plea in this place for some tax relief, we are told, “How many hospital beds do you want to close? How many police do you want to get rid of?” And on it goes.
I do not think you need to do that. And this level of expenditure here on the periphery is very clear evidence that, in fact, the government takes a decision that it will not extend tax relief but would rather spend taxpayers’ funds in a substantial way on many public relations initiatives to promote its own popularity within the electorate, which is clearly under some threat.
So instead of providing tax reform, the government has spent substantial amounts of money on business welfare, more staff for the Chief Minister, more money to prop up the University of Canberra and the Shared Services Centre, more money to the dying arboretum and so forth, and large amounts of money to subsidise festivals and sporting events. This is, of course, very much an election year budget that channels taxpayer funds into re-election projects rather than providing for much-needed tax reform.
I have to be fair—and I acknowledge that my colleague across the way Dr Foskey was also happy to add some balance in her remarks; and I have the same view of life—but it is not my intention to simply highlight missed opportunities and the shortcomings of this budget, but they need to be put on the record. There are some welcome initiatives, and it would be churlish not to recognise that some of the items in this year’s budget will benefit the people of Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .