Page 2142 - Week 06 - Thursday, 26 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
thresholds and to the homebuyer concession scheme, an increase in the threshold for payroll tax and the repeal of duty on the establishment of trusts.
The first one, in relation to the exemption for pensioners, I have had raised with me by some seniors as I have been out and about in the electorate. Whilst there are a few people that may have fallen through the gaps in terms of their status—and I have written to the Chief Minister in relation to one such case, a British war serviceman who has retired here—I think that the initiative has some sense as we try to encourage people to downsize, without a massive tax penalty, which will help in a small way or potentially will help with the housing situation where you are getting people out of houses that are substantially in excess of their requirements and making it easier for them to move to something more suitable.
These are welcome changes but they certainly do not undo the damage done by this government’s ongoing philosophy of high spending and high taxation. The small alleviations of the tax burden are simply a bump in the road on the government’s ongoing journey to bigger and bigger government.
There are several examples in this budget of wasted or inappropriate spending or spending which has been brought on as a result of the government’s mismanagement. The Chief Minister is fond of portraying any push for tax relief as an attack on core services like front-line medical and education staff. This approach of course is a stunt. It is disingenuous of him to argue that forgone tax revenue has to come from core services. I have heard him say it again and again and, after a moment of candour tonight and sensible comment, he quickly lapsed back into the old catchcry “any tax relief will lead to”—what is it?—“potholes, nurses being sacked, no policemen”.
In fact, one might have the belief that a lawless state would prevail if the views I have advocated in relation to tax relief were applied to Canberra families and business. Of course, that is not the case. It is a useful line in terms of justifying why no relief whatsoever is going to be available for the families of this territory who are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet.
We all see, in our own household budgets, the soaring cost of fuel. In a city which is still largely dependent on the car, where between 90 and 92 per cent of people use means other than public transport to get about, and in a city where we are seeing grocery prices go through the roof, there is a screaming demand for some form of tax relief. Whilst the ACT government may not be able to control those two major items of household expenditure, it would be the decent thing to extend some of the tax relief back to the ordinary families of this territory.
There are also areas of government waste, in my view. I have talked about corporate welfare before; I talked about percent for art; the arboretum; the list goes on. These are not critical projects. It is possible to demonstrate restraint in spending without taking doctors out of hospitals and so on.
My argument, which the Chief Minister well understands, is that government in the ACT should be committed to spending on core services like health and education. I accept that there has been a substantial improvement in the health expenditure and the AIHW figures in relation to our performance against other states have improved
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .