Page 1237 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was not going to speak in this debate, but upon hearing some of the contributions from other members, I did feel the need to make a contribution.
Whilst I will acknowledge from the outset the ideological purity of Mr Mulcahy’s position in putting forward this piece of legislation, this repeal bill, I do note that it really has taken his removal from that position there as shadow Treasurer to that position there on the crossbench for his true ideological purity to come to the fore. In my experience in this place—and I think I have just ticked over two years as a member of this place—I am yet to witness from the Liberal opposition anything that comes remotely close to a coherent policy in relation to taxation and in relation to budgeting in the territory. In the two years that I have been in this place, the only voice of any economic credibility within the Liberal opposition resided with Mr Mulcahy, who has since moved to a different position in the chamber. I admire, as I say, his ideological purity, but I would have to indicate my disagreement with Mr Mulcahy on this particular matter.
As the Chief Minister has alluded to, taxation is never popular. No-one likes particularly paying tax, but the broader contribution to our society that we collectively make as taxpayers and the opportunity through our governments to deliver services to those who are most in need requires taxation. I have to say that I do find it remarkable, given all the questions that I have fielded from Dr Foskey in the two years that I have been a minister in relation to the need for increased resources in the portfolio areas that I have responsibility for, most particularly in education, and I am just thinking back to conversations at the 2020 Summit on Saturday. I sat in on a table that included Dr Foskey, and the consensus was that governments needed to invest significantly more in education. So the question that is clear is: where is that money going to come from if not by means of collecting through taxation?
To suggest that we would be in a position, given the increased level of demand for services in the community, most particularly in health and education, just to hand back that amount of revenue and expect that it would have no impact on service delivery is a ridiculous proposition. I just think of the process of seeking efficiencies within the public education system, for example, through 2006 and the position of the Liberal opposition and of Dr Foskey around rejecting any moves to have more efficient service delivery in education, for example, and just how they would propose to make $17 million worth of savings each year given their resistance to taking any difficult decisions in relation to efficient service delivery.
Now, I will exclude Mr Mulcahy from this because in this instance I at least will give him credit for being supportive of government seeking to deliver services more efficiently. Since his move from the chair that Mr Smyth now occupies, his level of hypocrisy around wanting to walk both sides of the street here and opposing every single measure to improve efficiency and then, at the same time, wanting to reduce taxation has at least has moved away from that position and he now occupies a more ideologically pure position whereby he believes in smaller government. Good luck to him on that!
I am not necessarily sure that that is the position that the people of the ACT or the people of Australia are indicating in that they are requiring government to invest more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .