Page 2229 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 June 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

In conclusion, let me say we support the thrust of this legislation and the principles involved. The amendments seem to make sense in terms of improving the current process and therefore the opposition will be pleased to support the bill.

MR QUINLAN (Molonglo—Acting Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (11.38), in reply: I thank members for their support, albeit qualified support.

I would like to address some of the points that were made from the other side of the table. First of all, some of what Mr Smyth said was based on his claim that I had committed the government to be low taxing. I may have said that sometime in a moment of madness, but I am not sure that I did.

Mr Mulcahy: Generally you favour high taxing.

MR QUINLAN: There is a bit of room in between. I know you have got a fairly black and white mind, Mr Mulcahy, but I have become a little sensitised to being verballed in this joint. So if, in fact, Mr Smyth can demonstrate that I actually said we would be a low taxing government, I would like to see that. I did say that we would like to keep our taxes within a comparative framework with other jurisdictions but I do not think I said what Mr Smyth claimed. If I have I will cop it but I would like to see where. I certainly have not made it a major plank in our policy but it is not the first time that straw men have been built in this place in order to justify an otherwise fallacious argument.

In relation to what Mr Mulcahy has said, again what we have are some very simplistic notions that if you lower payroll tax, employers will have more money and they will employ lots more people; not that they will have more dough and repatriate it back to head office, not that they will have more dough to enjoy but that they will automatically employ more people. It is obvious really, isn’t it? It is amazing how often we see that premise being used, particularly by those on Capital Hill in this city, as the sole support for some particular so-called reform that will benefit business and not necessarily benefit the economy at all. It is a bleeding nonsense. Mr Mulcahy, I recommend that you read Paul Ormerod’s book The Death of Economics, which quite eruditely explains and examine how so much of what—

Mr Pratt: Superheroes—

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt!

MR QUINLAN: Do you mind? You’re an idiot.


MR QUINLAN: Just keep your idiotic comments out of this.

Mr Pratt: Up yours, Ted. Up yours.

MR QUINLAN: Say something clever.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .