Page 1783 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
know the minister has been sitting on a tax review for four months. Apparently it will come out next week, contradicting what the Chief Minister said at the Property Institute, that it would come out and be included in the budget. So they are flip-flopping again on every issue.
But the problem for ordinary taxpayers is that at the end of the day they pay these taxes. These taxes come out of their wallets. The more tax they pay, the less discretionary income they have to spend on themselves and their families, in some cases to buy the small niceties of life, which for some families might be Foxtel—given that we have got two classes now, those that can afford Foxtel and those that should not have it, according to the Chief Minister.
But this amendment today should be tempered by the removal of the word “direct”. I have left it broad. I could have been more definitive in what I put in the black-letter law. As I said in my speech, this will evolve, and it should evolve. But we should not start from a position that locks out some of the most devastating taxes on some households. They should be included. They can be included. It would be relatively easy to include them but if the minister and the Greens do not want to include them in this budget, the Canberra Liberals will do it in the next budget after the election.
So it is important that the word “direct” comes out. It is important that all taxes that can be attributed to households are included and it is important that my amendment to Mr Barr’s amendment does get up today.
I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1896].
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (11.16): The government will not be supporting the amendment.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.16): I think we had it there again from Mr Barr—the disdain that they show for the real cost of living pressures on Canberra families. He will not even say why he will not support this amendment which would simply ensure that both the direct and indirect taxes and charges are included. What is it that this government has to hide? I think we are seeing, again, the character of this government and the care and concern this government has for Canberra families and their cost of living pressures. Why not just support this amendment? If you are not going to support it, why don’t you get up and say why not? Why don’t you explain yourself and actually debate the issue?
Mr Barr has sought to limit this. First we had a motion which said “do it” and the Labor Party and the Greens did not support it. That would have been the simplest way to do it. With goodwill we would already have it. It would have been there in last year’s budget and it certainly would be there in this year’s budget. But what we see again from the government, the Labor Party in this place, is that they are saying: “We’re going to limit it. We’re not going to tell you the full facts. We’re not going to tell you the bits we don’t want you to know about. We’re not going to tell you about all those other ways.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video