Alex White (Labour)

There is consensus on the importance and value of the work done in the preparation of this consolidation Bill. The extent to which legislation is codified, consolidated and made easier to understand and access is welcome. The officials involved in this very arduous work are to be congratulated on the legislation they have produced and which we will be happy to pass.

I asked earlier about the trajectory of the legislation and whether a Second Stage debate was necessary in this House. I am grateful to the Clerk and the Chair for pointing out that given that the legislation did not begin in this House and went through a particular committee process, it was not required. I do not believe there always needs to be a Second Stage debate on legislation. I was not making a plea for that at all. Very often there is no need for Second Stage speeches on legislation and it would be better if we got down to the detailed work of scrutinising it. That is what was done in the particular committee process which was brought to bear in respect of this legislation. That is the right way for it to be done. I have no objection to that. I wanted to ensure there would not be any infirmity in it by reason of there not having been a Second Stage debate but it has been clarified that is not the case.

Senator Bradford signalled the fact there will inevitably be a broader debate on taxation measures, the balance of taxation, the broadening of the tax base and so on. We hear so much about that but we have not really got around to having a very detailed discussion on that. It is a subject we cannot avoid. We do not debate many of the things we need to debate until perhaps we are reminded to do so. Unfortunately, we are being reminded of many things by people in the EU Commission and elsewhere.

Commissioner Rehn reminded us last week that this is a low tax economy and that he thought we needed to move from being a low tax economy to a normal tax economy. We must have a mature debate on this matter because if we want the level of public services we have built up and want to maintain and enhance them, they must be paid for through taxation. All the political parties must be a bit more honest in terms of the public debate. Nobody wants to be the first party out of the traps to propose new taxation. Regrettably, the competition in the last election was competition between all parties as to which would reduce taxation. That is in the past and simply cannot happen. It is a question of courage right across the board.

I do not believe Senator Bradford should be too afraid of ideology. "Ideology" is not necessarily a bad word. What I mean by ideology is something much simpler than the Soviet system versus the doctrinaire right wing position. There are political questions as to the balance of taxation and whether people who are wealthier should have to pay a lot more tax than they have being paying. The question of the balance between indirect and direct taxes and whether there should be a property tax and a water tax are issues we will have to debate. Given many of things that have happened to us recently, can we start that debate ourselves rather than have it imposed on us, because it will be imposed on us?

Senators will note I have not made a partisan statement in this contribution. All parties are responsible because all politicians are fearful of this subject. It is a mark of our lack of maturity that we are not more up-front about putting a price on the public services for which we are fighting and which we want. They must be paid for and the only way to do so is to pay for them ourselves through taxation.