Page 1784 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In fact many of the indirect taxes are the most important. The real relevance of a statement like this is that it goes to all of the cost pressures that are caused by the government and indirect taxes are going to be a very important part of that. So by voting against this amendment the Labor Party is saying: “We don’t care about indirect taxes. You don’t need to know. We don’t need to be open about this. You will just have to dig through and find out, and when you see it on your bills, there you go. You will have it and you can add it up yourself.”
The opposition in this place will continue to put out our own statement which looks at the real cost impact on Canberra families. And it does not make for good reading because this government have hit the people of Canberra with massive increases in their rates and massive increases in water. They have upped electricity prices far more than they otherwise would have because of their policies. They have pushed up rents through their policies. They have added massive tax burdens on property, including with their lease variation charge, which will be over $50,000 per unit very soon. I guess the question will be: is that going to be considered a direct or an indirect tax? When they tax units, are they going to say that is not a tax on a household?
It will make it, it seems, what the government wants to make it—a less relevant document than it would be. It will have some merit. We will see some improvement. But the government and the Greens are doing all they can to limit that. They are doing all they can to hide the true state of affairs and the true impact on family budgets as a result of the government’s budgets and as a result of the government’s policies.
Remember what the other purpose behind such a statement is. The other purpose behind the statement is to force a government to put cost of living front and centre when they are developing their budget. When they are developing their budget they should be looking at what are the core services that need to be delivered and how to keep the costs down for Canberra families. They should be the two main questions a government ask themselves in framing a budget. We know they have not been asking themselves that because they have allowed costs to get out of control. They have pushed taxes up and up. So this is about saying to a government, “You will put it front and centre because there is an accountability measure in your budget.”
This amendment would improve Mr Barr’s own amendment. Mr Barr’s amendment is all about limiting the information flow. It is all about less information going to the community about their cost of living. So the amendment Mr Smyth has moved should be supported. It would make a bad amendment from Mr Barr better. It would mean that it would not be as restrictive and it would give Canberrans some honesty. It would give Canberrans the truth rather than what the government plans to give them, which is a sanitised version of the truth, and which is part of the truth when it comes to cost of living.
Again, I would just make the point that it shows their attitude to families in Canberra who are doing it tough. When they go out there and trumpet this or that, they should actually be held to account. As I said earlier, Canberrans are smarter than this government. They are much smarter than this government gives them credit for. They can see through the spin and they know that the Labor Party and their Greens alliance
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video