Page 1467 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is another part to this to do with water, Madam Speaker. In this Assembly we approved a reduction of the allowance of water from 455 to 350 kilolitres. The full impact of that in terms of the finances of ACTEW ought to have been seen over this past summer, but the reality was that hardly any of us turned on our sprinklers because we had such a wet summer. ACTEW had a problem because we happened to have weather conditions that meant a reduction in their income. What we ought to have done before accepting those fees, Madam Speaker, was to see what would have happened over a normal year. I think that what we will have very shortly, with a regressive form of taxation, is a very wealthy ACTEW and the Government saying, probably in the budget after the budget that is currently being prepared, "Let us lift that $19m up to, say, $25m", in just the same way as they lifted it from $12m to $19m just recently.
That issue is further exacerbated by the fact that ACTEW put out the notion that there is also an environmental tax. I find this environmental tax just a little bit heavy going, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that, if the fad of the time was something other than environment, then that is what we would be calling our tax. If the fad of the time was green trees we would be having a green tree tax, or if it was a - - -
Mr Kaine: A clean water tax.
MR MOORE: Or a clean water tax. If we really were interested in the environment, perhaps we could assist by making it much easier for people to put nice big rainwater tanks in their yard so that they can use rainwater on their gardens. Perhaps that would be a better way to deal with a genuine environmental issue.
The notion that Labor is prepared to push this line of using a regressive taxation system is upsetting to me. Madam Speaker, the reason I speak to this in the adjournment debate is that I would not wish to waste the Assembly's time by putting it as a motion when I realise that the numbers are totally stacked against me. I do think it is worth raising it to point out Labor's hypocrisy on this issue.
Whaling
MS ELLIS (5.14): Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of this Assembly the importance of the International Whaling Commission's meeting taking place in Kyoto, Japan, this week.
Mrs Carnell: There are a lot of votes in whaling.
MS ELLIS: I know that it is not a local issue, but it is a global one, Mrs Carnell, and I think it is very important. Snigger seriously if you do not mind. In 1982 the IWC decided by majority vote to introduce a moratorium on commercial whaling, to be phased in by 1985-86. It is generally accepted that the whaling nations of Iceland, Norway and Japan are pushing for a lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling. Since then the IWC Scientific Committee has continued to develop appropriate management procedures and observation methods to correctly monitor the stocks of all whales, including those dangerously near extinction. In the meantime, limited whaling for scientific
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .