Page 161 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of this series of negotiations, documents could not be provided and nothing is set in place.
I am troubled by the examples that were given to me. It was said to me, for instance, that people are not happy with the level and quality of paintwork on the Melbourne and Sydney buildings, and that therefore what we might do with this money is go out and paint them for the owners. This is outrageous. I find it extraordinary that I, as a Liberal representative here, am raising issues against a Labor government that is saying, “Let us go and tax people, and because some landlord does not want to outlay the money we will get the money off his competitors and paint the building.” This is an extraordinary philosophical approach that I just find unacceptable.
I was told, “Well, you know, you people do not like graffiti.” No, we do not like graffiti. In the Assembly here, Mr Hargreaves has frequently talked about the initiatives the government has taken in relation to removing graffiti from public places. None of us on this side of the house are under any illusion about the annoyance that graffiti causes and the difficulties that are created by vandals and people who continue to spray buildings after graffiti is removed.
I have also heard Mr Hargreaves say repeatedly that private buildings are not his responsibility. I do not have an issue with that. I do not have an issue with what Mr Hargreaves says.
Mr Hargreaves: Mr Pratt does.
MR MULCAHY: In terms of private buildings, I do not have an issue with what you say. But the fact of the matter is that we are being asked to say to a group of businessmen, many of whom look after their own premises—
Mr Corbell: And women.
MR MULCAHY: And women, indeed. Many of them look after their own buildings. We are saying to them, “Well, look, you do the right thing but we are going to tax you because so-and-so down the road does not want to spend the money on his place and this committee will dispense money to remove graffiti from those private buildings.” These are examples I was given. I was also told in the briefings: “Well, it is $1.2 million, but if the people want it to be $10 million we would be happy with that.”
We have a group of people who see this as enormously beneficial. I know many of those people. Some of them are good friends of mine. I say good luck to them. But we are basically saying that we are going to tax all of the commercial enterprises, right across the city, so that a handful of people can apply these funds for the benefit of businesses who are on the front line of Civic, as well as doing capital works for people who may not wish to outlay the cost of looking after buildings where they are generating profits for private investment. If you cannot maintain the properties you own, sell the building and let in someone who can. It is not the role of the Assembly to go out taxing people’s competitors to do the job that private landowners should do.
The Darwin experience ought to be providing a salutary lesson in what happens when you go down this road. It has been identified as a disaster. It led to strong opposition,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .