Page 2992 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So the excuses from the Treasurer for fiscal irresponsibility are just that: excuses that are not genuine and are not backed up by facts. The Treasurer wanted me to get back to her, and I am very happy to, because in the end we have to make sure that it is all about Katy or Jon or whoever happens to be claiming that it is all about them on any given day.
The fiscal irresponsibility of this budget is worth focusing on, because we have not actually seen from the government how they are going to actually turn this around. If you are delivering deficits, even in the best of times, even when the revenue is going through the roof, something is wrong. You are not actually looking hard for the spending cuts. You are not looking hard for the savings. If you are fair dinkum, people in the community will accept that, in very difficult economic times, when there are sudden downturns in revenue, governments will sometimes deliver deficits.
But they would also equally expect that when economic times improve, when revenues come back, as they have in very strong terms, you then balance the budget and deliver surpluses. That would be the ordinary way of doing things. But this Treasurer is predicting that that will not be the case. Even as revenues come back to double—and in the outyears they are projected to be double what they were when this government first came to office—they are still projecting that they will be delivering deficits. That is poor fiscal management.
There is a lot to focus on in a $4 billion budget. There are a lot of individual concerns. But in the end we have got a Treasurer and a government who are responsible for balancing that budget. And, as that revenue comes, they should be bringing it into surplus—and very strong surpluses—so that we can be protected from future shocks.
You look at why and you look at the taxation per capita, and the taxation per capita has gone through the roof as well. Per capita—so the population has been growing, so they are getting more revenue. But, on a per capita basis, in 2001-02 we have seen it go from around about $1,800 per capita to, projected in 2013-14, more than $3,500 per capita. (Second speaking period taken.) So again, even on a per capita basis, we are seeing that doubling.
And you do not have to look too hard to see where people are being slugged. Look at how much rates have gone up over the last decade under this government. In nine years of this government they have gone up roughly by 80 to 90 per cent in most suburbs—80 or 90 per cent! Is there anyone in the community who actually believes that they are getting 80 or 90 per cent improved services? Is there anyone who believes that or can say that the cost of living in that time has gone up by 80 or 90 per cent? In other areas, it has not, but, when it comes to paying for government services, that is the case for Canberrans.
Not satisfied, of course, Mr Speaker, with that amount of taxation—that amount of revenue—and still not able to deliver surpluses despite that, the government have decided that they need a new tax. The comparisons are interesting, aren’t they, between federal Labor and ACT Labor? Federal Labor went and blew all the money, and now they need a mining tax to get it back. ACT Labor have blown all the money, and now not only have they increased taxes and charges across the board; they have decided that they need a really big new tax, and that is a big tax on housing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video