Page 2913 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 August 2008

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


her daughters and making ends meet in such an environment. My constituent was particularly annoyed because she felt that the high taxes she paid were not commensurate with the standard of services that she is receiving from the territory government. She will be delighted to hear the Liberal Party’s endorsement of that high tax regime, and I will have much pleasure in writing to all of those people and letting them know that that is what they can expect if, under some bizarre circumstance, the Liberal Party ever secured the treasury bench.

Mr Stanhope: That is a bit cruel, Mr Mulcahy.

MR MULCAHY: I acknowledge Mr Stanhope’s view that it is a bit cruel, but I think the electors are entitled to know this position, because we are already getting advice on the matter. In particular, though, this constituent was not satisfied with the education provided at the local government schools. She made a point of saying that, despite her difficult financial position, she was scraping together all the money she could in order to send her daughters to a private school. She complained that the high levels of taxation made it harder for her to make ends meet and to educate her children.

That it is just one typical example, albeit an anecdote, of the kind of stress that is being created by the government’s philosophy of big government, high spending and substantial increases in taxation. I recognise what the Chief Minister says that we are not the highest taxing jurisdiction. I have sought further information through a question on notice, the answer to which has now been supplied, to ascertain whether the municipal issues are being taken into account and discounted in spending. Nevertheless, it provides little comfort to the people of Canberra to say that there are a couple of other states in Australia where they are paying more taxation. It does not help their household budgets.

In speaking on this bill on 2 April, I referred to the Chief Minister’s remarks to the Canberra Times made after the December quarter financial report. He told the Canberra Times that he may wind back some of the tax increases imposed by his government and that there was capacity to do so within the budget. In that article the Chief Minister was quoted as saying that it was an option that we could realistically explore. This position was a much more softened and positive approach than the Chief Minister has previously taken when he has ruled out the possibility of tax cuts. Of course, it is certainly a softer position than his former Treasurer took when he told Canberra businesses that he intended to squeeze them until they bled.

We have seen the government take a more friendly approach in its taxation rhetoric as we draw closer to the election, but what we have not seen is any genuine attempt to provide tax relief. It is easy for the Treasurer to make tantalising comments to the electorate about how he will consider tax cuts and how there are options that may be explored. But all of this is for nothing, of course, if the government is unwilling to back up these comments with action to reduce the burden of taxation that is imposed on ACT residents.

Make no mistake: the government has obtained the surpluses in its budget for no other reason than because it is rapidly increasing taxes in this territory. The government has made only minor attempts to reduce its costs, obtain efficiencies or curtail excessive


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