Page 3472 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would remind the Assembly that Mr Humphries was a Minister in the Government which, in 1990, increased the franchise fees on petrol in the ACT by more than 85 per cent. The utter and appalling hypocrisy of his comments today, I think, would leave people just about speechless, Madam Speaker. By contrast, the 0.5c increase in the fee which is proposed in my determination is a comparatively modest increase of 7.8 per cent, compared to 85 per cent. What hypocrisy! Madam Speaker, I urge members of the Assembly to reject Mr Humphries's motion, which should be seen for what it is - an attempt by the Liberal Opposition to obstruct the governance of the Territory by denying the Government one of its revenue measures.
The additional $1m that will be raised by this increase in petrol fees is an important part of the Government's overall budget strategy, and it is important for the provision of services to this community. As an Assembly you simply cannot expect to keep trying to remove revenue and at the same time maintain services. I find it an extraordinary move from the Liberals, Madam Speaker, because we have heard nothing from them recently except their intention to spend more money. They have urged us to spend more on health, they have urged us to spend more on education, and at the same time they are trying to reduce the taxes. Money just does not grow on trees and we must have an income in order to provide services. I think, Madam Speaker, that their position on this is entirely irresponsible. It really is just political posturing.
I would like to address Mr Humphries's remarks about the PSA and the date of effect. Madam Speaker, our petrol tax is a franchise fee; it is a licence to trade in the future. True enough, it is calculated by reference to a past period - the period two months previously. But this reference is an indication of activity for the relevant licence month; it is not the rate. It is merely used as an indication of activity, and the licence is a licence to trade in the future. The franchise scheme is not a tax on past sales. I think Mr Humphries misunderstood that. The Territories and the States, of course, are not allowed to levy such taxes; they would be excises.
Madam Speaker, the fact that the scheme is not a tax is borne out. If a licensee ceases to trade, or this determination is disallowed, the licensee will keep the fees previously passed on to consumers. For this reason, when the Government has previously increased franchise fees, namely, tobacco fees, we have not given licensees time to unfairly pass that fee on to consumers before the Government begins to collect the fees. So we have not done what Mr Humphries has accused us of doing. In fact, I have written to the Federal Treasurer, Mr Dawkins, raising my concern about and my disagreement with the action that the Prices Surveillance Authority took on this matter on this occasion, and urging them to consult with the ACT Government if they wish to take such action in future. We will tell them when to do it, because they have got the timing wrong.
There is one further matter, Madam Speaker, which I wish to address. I think it may well be an unintended consequence of Mr Humphries's motion today. I hope that it is unintended, because if it is not it would be the height of irresponsibility. Mr Humphries's motion seeks to disallow table 1 of Determination No. 122, which sets the franchise fees. Madam Speaker, the preamble to the determination revokes all fees; it revokes the previous determination. If Mr Humphries's motion were to be passed, the Assembly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .