Page 1235 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
level of taxation? This is what I, Richard Mulcahy, will cut from the budget. This is what I, Dr Foskey, will cut from the budget. This is what I, Brendan Smyth, will take out of the budget. We will reduce services for child protection. We will reduce services for mental health. We will reduce services for community safety. We will reduce our investment on climate change.”
If you are going to stand here today and say, “Look, I want you, the government, to take $17 million out of your government expenditure,” at least give us a hint as to which government expenditures you propose that we cut.
DR FOSKEY: Just find it in a more equitable way.
MR STANHOPE: Which government expenditures do you propose we cut? Dr Foskey interjects, “Well, impose your taxation in a more equitable way.” What is your taxation proposal, Dr Foskey? These debates around “you are overtaxing” and “you are charging too much” are presented to the government every sitting week. All day today it has been: “You are not spending enough on this. You are not spending enough on that.” I exclude Mr Mulcahy from that. At least Mr Mulcahy does have some conviction around a philosophy in relation to the role of government. I do acknowledge that. Mr Mulcahy would cut from services here and there. He is quite open about it.
It is humbug for the Liberal Party and the Greens to stand here, with hand on heart, and say, “This impost on the people of the ACT is outrageous,” without once giving a hint as to what it is that they would cut. This is the hard business of government—determining an appropriate level of revenue and then determining what priorities that revenue will be directed to.
The government certainly will not be supporting this bill today. As I have said in response to a number of questions over the last two weeks, the ACT is not a high taxing jurisdiction. I find that suggestion absolutely remarkable when all the advice, all the evidence and all the statistics—this is not from the ACT government, not from my officials or services, but the latest advice, the February reports of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics—indicate that we spend at 122 per cent of the national average. In other words, we spend at 22 per cent above the national average in the ACT, and we tax at 105 per cent, just above the national average and exactly in line—within one per cent—of New South Wales, two per cent of Victoria and beneath, for instance, South Australia. Those are the facts.
On the basis of state and local government top taxation, the ACT taxes at essentially the Australian average and in line most particularly with our neighbour New South Wales. We do not tax highly or harshly, but we certainly do spend at significantly above the national average. You have to ask the question: if you are taxing at 105 and spending at 122, you have got a 17 per cent disjoint. How do we manage to do that? We manage to do that through efficiencies in service delivery. We have some economies of scale here as a city state, but we do it through efficiencies.
Through the budget that has just been so roundly criticised we did take some significant steps. We did seek to get expenditure in line with revenues to a far greater
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .