Page 3452 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
effectively divert some of the revenue to the commonwealth. I also recognise that there are competing arguments about the impact of land tax on the rental market and how it can be used to influence housing affordability. No system is ever perfect, and the transitional period is always the most difficult, but ultimately it will make the tax system better. As with any reform, if you never start you will never finish. At some time it has to be done; now is as good a time as any.
In relation to the other revenue items in the budget, some comments about the lease variation do have to be made. Certainly the amount forecast was not reached, but I think that is primarily due to market conditions rather than the modest increase in the charge, because of the high discount applied this year. I think that the fact that house prices have not risen this year just shows that the arguments from the Leader of the Opposition are about as credible as are Tony Abbott’s arguments on the impact of the carbon tax.
Mr Barr: He did not mention the carbon tax, did he?
MS HUNTER: No, indeed. For the record, I will repeat the Greens’ support for the changes to the lease variation charge and again reiterate the need for a general sustainability remission instrument to utilise the lever available to us to deliver better environmental outcomes from our housing.
I would now like to go to the first homeowners grant. I note the recent changes to the New South Wales scheme and again place on the record the Greens’ view that it does nothing to improve housing affordability. I think that in light of the New South Wales changes to the way the grant is paid there, the Treasurer should revisit this issue with his counterparts from other jurisdictions to see if a more sensible solution for the use of this money can be found. Housing affordability is a very important issue for Canberra and spending public money to make it worse just defies common sense.
On the question of economic management, as I said in my budget reply, the Greens agree that additional money should be spent to offset the reduction in commonwealth spending in Canberra. We are a countercyclical economy and, particularly given last year’s outcome, we think it is good policy to be spending a bit more to keep our economy strong.
Having supported the principle of additional spending, I would like to make the general observation that the Greens believe that the details of that expenditure represent a wasted opportunity to invest in longer term initiatives that will ultimately deliver better outcomes. Areas such as public transport infrastructure like light rail and better recycling to capture the value of scarce resources are good investments, not just for now but also for the future.
The point that seems to be accepted in principle but cannot seem to be applied in practice is that we have to be doing what we do differently. Doing so would save us money and reduce our environmental impact. Unlike probably any other time in post-industrial revolution history, now is a time when economic success most likely will not be tied to resource depletion and ever increasing carbon emissions. In terms of economic management, the most important thing that we can do is make our economy
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video