Page 1258 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the community about the ACT being the only Australian jurisdiction in recession. With respect to the Stanhope-Gallagher government having contributed to it, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that nothing done here matters. The only way you could argue against that point is to suggest that every decision they have taken has been correct, that nothing they have done has in any way stifled business, economic activity or development, and that none of the taxes they have imposed have been regressive. To try and make that case, which essentially the Greens and the Labor Party are making by opposing this motion, flies in the face of the evidence and it flies in the face of logic. It essentially draws the conclusion that nothing that the ACT government does matters for the economy, when we know that is not the case.
We know that Jon Stanhope and Katy Gallagher are simply going to blame everyone else for our problems. We all know that there are difficult economic times around the world; no-one disputes that. The question is: does what the ACT government does contribute to that and make it worse or does it fight against that and seek to shield the ACT from the worst effects? Mr Smyth made the case very clearly that if it simply was the global financial crisis, if that was the only reason why the ACT is in recession, why aren’t other Australian jurisdictions in recession? Why would we be the first? It is actually quite counterintuitive that the ACT would be the first, and it does speak of problems at a local level. We are not as exposed as other jurisdictions to downturns in international trade, and it is simply an argument that does not stack up.
We see in paragraph (1)(c) of the motion that the Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, has taken full credit for the favourable economical position of the ACT in past years. We heard the quote; it was quoted in the Assembly—he did take full credit. He enjoyed taking the credit when the economy was booming. The economy, of course, was booming around the world, it was booming around Australia, and the ACT was doing well. Generally, the economy was doing pretty well, and Jon Stanhope took credit for that. He took credit for the great boom, which was, of course, as a result of massive increases in commonwealth spending. We saw an unprecedented property boom right around the nation and here in the ACT, and Jon Stanhope took the credit.
So I am not sure which part of this motion is wrong. I can understand that the Labor Party does not want to condemn itself for its performance, but it does deserve condemnation. It deserves condemnation because it has squandered the boom times. When you see a boom of the magnitude we have had in the past few years, with the massive revenue coming in, and yet in that time you do not see any tax reform that actually—
Mr Smyth: Meaningful.
MR SESELJA: any meaningful tax reform that actually sees more money in people’s pockets so that they have money to spend. You might be able to get away with that in boom times, but what about making those reforms and ensuring that Canberrans do have money to spend? What about ensuring that businesses do not have regressive taxes that actually in the end do not raise a lot of money and do not bring a lot of money into the territory’s coffers but do cause a lot of inconvenience? They are nuisance taxes. This government has not taken any of those away.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .