Page 840 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The basic point is that, if the community wants government to provide a service, let us put a price tag on it. Let us ask the community to pay that price. We will soon find out whether the community has the same values as the Government does. If the Government, instead of trying to use this taxation by stealth method of upping the levy when you pay your electricity or water rates, were to go to the community and say, "Here is a specific tax of $25 a year that we are going to make you pay to maintain the environment", they might get a very curious response. They might find that a lot of people do not value the environment at the rate of $25 a year. They may have some other value they are prepared to pay; but is it $25 a year, or $50 a year? Who knows? I think that is the test of the community will. If the Government has the courage of its convictions, it will put it to them quite bluntly and ask them to pay the price, and we will see whether they will.
I support the motion put forward by Mr Westende. We have to collect through the public utility the levies that people expect to pay for the electricity, water and sewerage services they consume. ACTEW should be allowed to adjust their rates every year to cover the increases in costs which are beyond their control. I cannot accept Mr Moore's proposition that they should not be permitted to do that. However, I believe that the Government should not be allowed to raise taxes by subterfuge, and that is what is happening here. Let us see just how much courage the Government has and whether it will impose a specific tax, at any rate at all, to provide the services it is now expecting the corporate body of ACTEW to provide.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.46): Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat curious to hear Mr Kaine supporting this motion, which is in effect the Assembly purporting to direct me to reduce the rate of charges. I heard him on the radio only the other morning saying, "While I may disagree with what the Government has done, we will not be moving in the Assembly to do anything about it. We will criticise you, but it is inappropriate to move it in the Assembly". The Opposition Leader says something in the public domain, but a couple of days later one of his members moves a motion that does exactly what he said to the public he would not do. However, that is a matter for his credibility and he has to worry about that rather than I.
At the outset I want to make clear one point where I think we and the Liberal Party are at one and Mr Moore is in a glorious minority of one. That is in his amendment, where he goes beyond criticising these increases and criticises the reduction in the free water allowance to 350 kilolitres. I can recall during the election campaign a debate on ABC radio with Mr De Domenico when we both agreed that that was a sensible proposition. Members will recall that last week a major conference was held at the University of Canberra on water policy for this region and throughout Australia.
Members will be aware that the potential cost of a new dam for the ACT is $100m plus, which would come from ACTEW. ACTEW would have to raise those dollars. I remind members that there are about 100,000 households in Canberra, so our $25 levy will raise $2.5m. If we had to raise $100m, the rate of increase in water rates or sewerage rates would be astronomical. The only way to avoid that in the long and medium term is through the pricing mechanism and by putting the free allowance down. We have to get away from this concept that there is such a thing as free water. There is no such thing as free water; it is an expensive and scarce commodity. I think there is bipartisan support, apart from Mr Moore,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .