Page 3471 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.04): Madam Speaker, the motion that Mr Humphries has moved today seeks to disallow the part of Determination No. 122 of 1993 which provides for the increase in petroleum and diesel fuel franchise fees in the ACT, although we have heard precious little about that diesel fuel franchise fee. In my view, this revenue measure, which is a significant and of integral part of the Government's overall budget for 1993-94, is a minimal tax increase and one that is clearly necessary in the budgetary position that the Territory faces. As members know, the Territory has not increased its petrol fees in three years, ever since Mr Kaine first put them on. This determination seeks to restore the real value of the fee in the ACT and, incidentally, to bring it into line with that in New South Wales, where, if my memory serves me, we have a Liberal government.
The disallowance that Mr Humphries is proposing would only result in this source of revenue shrinking, and continuing to shrink in real terms. If you look at the limited revenue base that the Territory has, that is, I think, a burden that people ought to be aware of. Disallowance of the determination would also mean that the Territory would continue to be inconsistent with New South Wales tax measures, but with no price benefit whatsoever to ACT motorists. We know that there would be no price benefit whatsoever to ACT motorists by our maintaining a taxing regime that is lower than that of New South Wales. We know that because we have been doing it for three years, and throughout that period petrol prices have remained substantially higher in the ACT than in New South Wales. We learn from experience over here, Madam Speaker, and it is abundantly clear that the ACT's tax on petrol has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of petrol.
As I stated in my budget speech, the level of petrol prices in the ACT is, of course, of concern to the community, and it is of concern to the Government. We have an ACT working party on petrol pricing which found that those franchise fees, as I have just said, are in no way the cause of the price disparity between Canberra and Sydney. Mr Humphries conveniently overlooks that finding. He prefers to go on with his political point scoring and his cheap throwaway lines, ignoring any authoritative evidence that might contradict his claims. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, as I have said, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that continuing to contain those fees would have any effect on a containment of consumer prices.
The Government's commitment to the reduction of petrol prices was demonstrated in my announcement of the Government's intention to encourage independents into the local market and thereby counteract the lack of competition, and we are going through with that. Mr Connolly will address that matter further. The Government believes that this is a far more effective way of lowering the fuel prices to motorists. Madam Speaker, disallowing the determination will result in a windfall gain to oil companies - nothing more. Anybody who believes that that would be passed on to the ACT petrol purchaser, the consumer, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. After three years of experience have you learned nothing? Members know full well that the Prices Surveillance Authority has authorised the fuel price increases related to the fee increase from 1 October, and disallowance of this determination will not result in the return of price increases to the ACT motorists. I will come back to the PSA in a moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .