Page 3893 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
economic system based on free markets. The trickle-down or prime development approach, which the Australian government has moved away from at various times through its development assistance programs but is definitely firmly there now, has not brought benefits to vast numbers of people in the world. I do not know how people can keep reiterating these principles without backing them up. They cannot be backed up. It is not enough to just utter these words like some sort of ritual slogan; the fact is that it does not work. Governments have a reason for existing; they were invented by people for the precise reason of organising society to improve conditions for everybody.
With regard to Mrs Dunne’s comments about payroll tax, perhaps she does not understand that the burden of this tax is passed on to the worker. You do not see companies bearing the burden of this, of it cutting into their profits, as in the case especially of low wage earners who have no choice but to accept a job even when the wages are not enough. We need to be very careful about that.
Mrs Dunne: I would be very careful, if I were you!
DR FOSKEY: This is part of the problem: you do not listen. Perhaps you read the debates later on; I do not know. I have found a number of times that you just do not hear the things people say. I do not think it is a particularly good way of operating. Mrs Dunne said that employment is the antidote to poverty. The whole point of this discussion is how to get people into employment. The best thing is to provide people with jobs—I cannot argue with that—and marginal tax rates must be addressed. That is the single most important thing the federal government can do. It is good to hear that acknowledgment from the Liberal Party here but it is a pity it cannot use its influence with the federal government to make sure marginal tax rates are addressed. Instead of forcing people out of welfare with penalties, we could entice them out by reducing marginal tax rates. I am sorry to hear that we will have to live with the McDonald’s anomaly. I guess that is one of the reasons why nothing changes.
Mr Hargreaves made a number of points about how the ACT government is moving to address poverty. We heard quite a bit about the social plan, the community inclusion board and poverty proofing. I am really pleased to hear about the poverty-proofing report. I hope that arrives in my office quite soon. I am sure the Liberal Party are also interested in seeing it, because they are very concerned about poverty.
One of the problems with the Irish model of poverty proofing, which has been quoted today, is that they do their poverty proofing after the budget is decided, not before. The Greens would like some reassurance that the ACT government will conduct the poverty-proofing process before the budget is decided, rather than afterwards. We would like to make sure we have a date for the community inclusion board to look at our motion. I have not heard whether it is realistic that the community inclusion board work to the date set in the motion of March 2006. We need reassurance that they will either work to that date or set another date, so we know when to look forward to that. Finally, to address Mrs Burke’s comments, it would be really good if Mrs Burke could get over the fact that I am in a government house.
Mrs Burke: Ask the people who call my office to get over it. It is unfortunate.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Burke!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .