Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (19:35): I contribute to the debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Surcharge) Bill 2017. The bill is before us because New South Wales has a government lacking political conviction. This bill makes a mockery of this Government's claim that it wants to be taken seriously. This bill, like so many others before it, demonstrates that under this Liberal Government, political expediency and policy lobbying override principles and the public interest. This bill proves—yet again—that we are dealing with a Marxist government. Now, before colleagues on the other side of the Chamber get too excited, I am not referring to Karl Marx—the historian, economist and revolutionary socialist eternally residing in Highgate Cemetery in the United Kingdom. No, the Marx I am referring to is the film producer and comedian Julius Henry Marx, or Groucho, as he was professionally known, who is eternally residing in Eden Memorial Park Cemetery in Los Angeles.
I refer to this Government as a Marxist government because it is clear that with yet another policy backflip under its belt, this Government—this Marxist Government—has 100 per cent embraced one of Groucho Marx's most famous lines: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others." Think about that for a minute: On every occasion, when the political lobbying intensifies, when the poll numbers start to fall, when the media inquiries start buzzing, this Government abandons any semblance of orderliness and adopts a new set of principles. Grouch Marx would be proud of this Government because it is not that this Liberal Government lack principles; it is just that it has so many of them. As we all know, a political party that stands for everything actually stands for nothing.
The Foreign Investor Surcharge [FIS] was originally announced with conviction and on principles because this new policy was, one, going to "fund vital services, such as health and education", in the current Premier's own words back in June 2016; and, two, going to address housing affordability in an overheated housing market which was putting home ownership beyond the grasp of hard-working people in New South Wales, especially younger people. These are noteworthy principles, but as we all know it did not take too long to unravel under this Liberal Government. Those were the Government's principles, but because the development industry did not like them, this Liberal Government has others. We would have thought Treasurer Perrottet, in his first budget speech, would have made mention of this great policy that was going to fund vital services and address housing affordability to the tune of approximately $1.1 billion over the forward four years as stated in Budget Paper No. 1. But, no, there was not even a whisper, because of an imminent sneaky, tricky change that was in the pipeline. The Treasurer was content with doing media three weeks prior to his first budget speech proclaiming the FIS policy's financial and service benefits, but then fell silent. The Treasurer's actions should not really surprise anyone who has followed this Liberal Government's policy-making conviction.
Let us go to another great financial reform that was debated, legislated, enacted and then redacted. I am, of course, talking about the fire and emergency services levy [FESL]. The FESL and the foreign investor surcharge [FIS], two major F-grade policy convictions based on Marxist multiple principles and policy decision-making. On 7 March the Treasurer informed this House, "This is an important significant reform. However, in some ways, it is a very simple reform." Later, on 30 May, the same Treasurer stated in his media release, "The FESL is a complex reform." Which one is it, Treasurer? Is it simple, is it complex, or is it simply Marxian? There are things that the Treasurer had to say about his signature reform: "Our reform is better", he boasted, but if that is the case, then why has he abandoned it? Marxism you say—you would be right. In the Premier's and the Treasurer's combined 400 or so word media release outlining the reversal of the FESL legislation, hardly a single mention was made of the pensioners and the low to middle income earners who are going to be slugged with significantly higher premiums.
Mr Kevin Conolly: Point of order.
Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG: There is no point of order, sit down.
Mr Kevin Conolly: Point of order: I would like you to draw the member back to the leave of this bill, not some other bill that was dealt with earlier in the year.
TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Greg Aplin ): The member has entertained us, but he will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG: There was barely a footnote among all the rhetoric, as in this situation where the vital health and education services, which were referred to by the Premier, and housing affordability which the FIS was designed to address, barely got a four font sized footnote; rather, the spin flowed freely:"We knew there would be challenges during the transition stage". "We have heard the concerns". "We want to get this right". "Additional flexibility so said the Minister for Finance in his second reading speech". The insincerity is so thick in the media spin it is difficult to come up with the appropriate words. A new issue, a new media release and a new set of carefully spun words, but we have heard and seen it all before. A government that lacks conviction and lacks leadership will always retreat to its Marxist principles of adopting anything and everything to survive, but because of this Government's lack of conviction and competency, millions of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted with thousands of staff hours lost. Those costs are passed onto the public in the lost opportunity cost in providing better services in health and education.
We have heard, not only tonight but for a long time, the self-assessed rhetoric about how the Liberals are addressing housing affordability mainly through supply, supply and supply—a one-trick political pony that has realised that housing affordability is not a one dimensional issue. Under this Liberal Government, let us increase supply and put downward pressure on housing affordability in a shorter time period by inserting schedule point 6 and extending the time period for exemptions and refunds for up to 10 years to enable people develop their land holdings. Rather than encourage supply in a shorter time frame, which would assist in putting downward housing pricing pressure because as we all know, the cost of land is the major component of housing, let us instead extend the time period so that those who have market power in land holdings can then drip-supply land to the market to maximise their profits at the expense of would‑be homeowners who are working longer hours and may never own their own home.
They would not do that, because I always thought that in any capital market economics a private firm would maximise its profit through the market now with a 10-year time frame. I thought that was simple economics but of course, we do not do that. Professor Thaler won this year's Nobel Prize for Economics for his many decades of work on irrationality in decision-making. He could have just used the Liberal Government as a case study over the past 2½ years to prove his point. He would have saved at least two to three decades worth of work. This backflip is actually not new but has occurred under this Liberal National Government at all times. Let us just take a brief—or maybe not so brief—moment to examine this Government's track record of backflips. There are so many it is hard to know where to begin. Greyhounds—backflip. Number two, council amalgamations.
Mr Geoff Provest: Point of order: I appreciate this history lesson, but the member should return to the leave of the bill. Further to my point of order, I did not see the word "greyhound" in this bill.
TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Greg Aplin ): Order! The member for Macquarie Fields will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG: It is a broad planning speech which goes back to the heart of the FIS bill, which is actually also about backflips. The list is endless. I will be fair, I will take your call and I will not mention them, but there are many. Of all the backflips, from the greyhounds to the council amalgamations to Hurlstone Agricultural High School, I can add to the list now, the FIS and the FESL—F-grade backflips laced with confusion and humiliation. Governments are elected to govern, but what does this Government do? Backflips, one after the other. A perfect 10—Olympic gymnast Nadia Comaneci would be so proud. My colleague, the shadow Minister for Finance, has outlined some sensible amendments— [Time expired.].
