|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [3.42 p.m.]: After the drivel we have heard from the Government today, there can be no more urgent need than to discuss an issue that really matters. The Government has signed up to a transaction that I believe will potentially mortgage the interests of this State into the future, but has failed to consider the detail that comes with it. The Government is happy to take photos, talk about the big picture, and say it has changed the world, but it ignores the detail. Unfortunately, this Government does not have a good track record when it comes to detail. Has the Government given up the long-term interests of this State for short-term election cash?
A perusal of the Government's record on detail provides compelling proof of its ineptitude: The Cross City Tunnel contract, currently before the courts; the Lottery debacle; the CBD Metro, currently costing $500 million and will go well above that before completion; and the Building the Education Revolution, paying out $1 million for shade cloths that actually cost $70,000. The downside of this Government is to be found in its lack of attention to detail in project delivery.
Why has the Government given up the GST? It is hard not to savour the delicious irony of Labor's record on the GST. We remember Kim Beazley, a nice bloke who did not quite get there. He said he was going to roll back the GST. He did not want the GST. But today thunderbird Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Manly that he should be establishing why his motion should be accorded priority.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: Not only does Kevin Rudd want the GST, he wants all of it. The question is why? Why is the Federal Government so interested in the GST? Has anyone on the other side asked that question? Yes, someone on the Government side of this House did ask that question. I have given very little credit to that person in the past, but on this point I think he is right. We all remember Bob Carr. After the behaviour we have seen in this House today I think we need Bob Carr to come back to provide both entertainment and advice. When Bob Carr took on Kim Beazley, this is what he said:
It is better for the states to get that [GST], a growth tax, than to subsist on grants from the Commonwealth that rise only with the CPI, that don't rise in response to the growth of economic activity.
That would give the States the opportunity to govern their own interests and be rewarded for good economic management. If the economy is being well managed and revenue is increasing, more resources can be put into health, transport and community services. But this Labor Government has given up the GST, and we must ask why.
Stamp duty is a very volatile revenue stream. Payroll tax impacts on economic performance. The GST is efficient and stable and grows with the economy. Do the Premier and the Treasurer of this State think this State is no longer going to grow, so they are happy to give away the GST? That could be their argument. Why did John Brumby and Colin Barnett argue so strongly? Colin Barnett continues to strongly argue that he does not want to give up the GST but is happy to contribute to the new program. We understand that health costs are rising at a rate that is unsustainable for the States to manage them, and the States want the Federal Government to contribute. We are happy to make a contribution but not from our growth tax. Why should we give away our growth tax, which is the only tax that grows with the economy?
The National Health and Hospitals Network agreement contains some good points. What is the State's GST contribution that this Labor Government has signed up to? There is nothing mentioned in that agreement, no percentage amount. That means that the amount we are going to give in GST is a blank cheque. But it gets worse when you look at page 7 of the agreement, section 17 (b), which says:
There will be a review of the level of GST to be dedicated once the system is transitioned to an efficient price
What does that mean for us? What is an "efficient price"? I ask that because the next clause says that the States have to pick up the shortfall on an "efficient price"? Have we been duded in this transaction? Has the Government sold out the economic future of this State for a lazy grab of election cash?
Question—That the motion of the member for Wollongong be accorded priority—put.
The House divided.
|
