Page 2400 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 6 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, also the former Cabinet was facing the prospect of perhaps having to examine borrowings. I quote from page 8 of the published bound statement, where Ms Follett says:
In addition we have reviewed the previous Government's capital works program so that borrowings can be minimised, and hopefully avoided altogether, in constructing future Budgets.
What Ms Follett is referring to is a municipal budget, a municipal capital works program. All organised governments usually borrow on their municipal accounts because future generations, not the current ratepayers, should pay for the infrastructure inputs to land servicing and the rest. In this sense, Ms Follett binds herself as a matter of policy - and we will hold her to that at the election campaign - to not borrowing on the municipal account. Given the nature of the circumstances of Canberra as it stands, given the fact that we have a high per capita income and a high level of capital assets in a significant proportion of the community, there is a continuing possibility that we should be orthodox and borrow on the municipal account so that future people, not the current ratepayers, pay towards it. We are moving into another land development boom, in a way, in Gungahlin particularly, and those municipal borrowings will be taken up by the people who go onto those blocks.
Mr Speaker, a clear, definitive statement on revised receipts estimates should have been issued with this strategy. My view, and that which a number of informed people in this town take, is that stamp duty revenues will pick up for the Government in the short term. There is an upswing in conveyancing; there will be an increase in stamp duty revenues; and that may offset the predicted downturn of $5m. That is not alluded to. I believe that the Chief Minister, in finalising her budget, should seek careful advice from the stamp duties office as to whether revenue has not picked up with the upswing in the housing market, which is evident to those of us who know those things.
Mr Speaker, the other issue that concerns me particularly is the failure to consider adequately the social justice impact of the one per cent land tax. In the ACT the majority of residential tenancy agreements are for a shorter term than those interstate. Often both landlord and tenant hedge their bets in this Territory, and there are a number of short-term tenancies at will - monthly tenancies. This means that this land tax can be passed on to tenants very quickly during anticipated and non-scheduled rent reviews. It means that the average $100 rental bill will go up to $106 for the tenant. Moreover, the decision to impose this does not adequately address the question of whether the Grants Commission will not simply take out the expected $6.3m revenue when it comes around next time. What is the net gain of imposing this land tax?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .