This is why we can’t cancel debt
Other states would ask for money, and we’d all end up paying,
HOMELESSNESS is a scourge. For each individual confronted with no roof over their head it is a crisis of mammoth proportions impacting every aspect of their wellbeing.
All levels of government have a role to play in alleviating this scourge. The comments of Alderman Brendan Blomeley of Clarence City Council were spot on ( Mercury, June 19). Local government controls release of land, costs of developments, density of housing and thus the affordability and provision of housing. The State Government controls stamp duty. Federally, good economic management and interest rates impact as well.
In short, all levels of government have a huge responsibility and a role to play in delivering affordable housing.
Federally, we’ve appointed Michael Sukkar as the Minister for Housing to assist in co-ordinating our response.
The State Government has a generous first homeowners’ scheme. Federally, we are seeking to assist first-home buyers with lower deposits to get them started.
As we grapple with these issues a call has been made to “forgive” Tasmania’s debt to the Federal Government.
Tasmanians rightfully require we be respected as a foundation state of the Commonwealth. With that status comes responsibility — which includes paying our debts. If Tasmania’s debt were to be “forgiven” does anyone believe other states wouldn’t make a similar request?
Why wouldn’t they? And there are thousands of millions owed by the states to the Commonwealth. If we are “forgiven” the debt it doesn’t disappear. It is simply transferred to another level of government and will need to be paid for by — you guessed it — you and me, the longsuffering taxpayer.
It doesn’t make any practical difference to our pockets whether we pay our taxes to the coffers of Hobart or Canberra. We still pay. Given the posturing by some I rhetorically ask whether the owners of newspapers pursue outstanding debts? Similarly I ask parliamentarians who were previously business owners whether they pursued outstanding debts? I’m sure they do and did. So let’s not have this pretence that somehow government is different and “forgiving” debt allows the indebtedness to disappear into the ether. It still needs to be paid.
There is no conflict between sound economic management and a social conscience. Indeed the two go hand in glove. To suggest otherwise comprehensively misunderstands the basics of long-term sustainable public policy. As someone who made a personal commitment to help set up from scratch a women’s shelter and a youth shelter (mentioned in my first speech), who has invited people in need of shelter into our own home while championing the funding of social housing, including the recently announced $30 million for social housing, I am not blinded to the need for responsible economic management
That is why I said: “The simple fact is that Tasmania borrowed money for the purposes of social housing, and there needs to be repayment of that, otherwise it rewards bad behaviour by state governments. Whether we can come to some sort of accommodation to ensure people don’t suffer as a result of the bad behaviour of previous state governments, that is something I would like to explore with the Federal Housing Minister Michael Sukkar”.
Balancing responsibility and sound economic management with provision of support so “people don’t suffer” is the mature balance we desperately need in the development of sustainable public policy.