Page 3607 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 19 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issue of compliance, of course, is the responsibility of the Revenue Office. Nevertheless, it is important for us to determine whether or not we believe that compliance is possible. Mr Humphries has very eloquently presented the position as he perceives it in terms of what would happen as far as the New South Wales legislation goes. He has read from the New South Wales legislation; he has commented on the messages and the contacts he has had. They contrast with the briefing we had from the officers from the Chief Minister's Department, who indicated that they have agreement from the New South Wales Commissioner of Revenue and that all will be hunky dory. It seems to us that we are now faced with a decision as to whether we are going to believe one person or another. At this stage we do not believe that the situation has been resolved to our satisfaction.
It is also important to recognise the hardship this impost will cause to some people, keeping in perspective, as with any revenue measure, that people will identify the hardship. The Chief Minister has certainly recognised, in terms of the home heating fuel bill, that there should be exemptions not only for people with pensions but for those with health care cards, and I think that is commendable. I have some concern, I must say, for those people on superannuation who have contacted us, who are at the bottom of the superannuation level and who are now going to have to find extra money. That is always going to be a problem, wherever we draw the line. There is always going to be somebody just over the line and somebody just under it. That is something we can consider.
The other important group is farmers, and we have been contacted by farmers from places such as Pialligo and so forth about the extra impost on them at a time when they are struggling. Perhaps we need to consider whether the exemption should include those farmers and the impact it is going to have on them. These are the issues we are wrestling with.
It is also interesting that the Chief Minister today indicated that we already put an impost on gas for heating; we take a dividend from the Electricity and Water Authority - $25m this year - and therefore in an indirect way people are required to pay an extra tax into the ACT revenue. It is important to contrast the dividend on natural gas, which is 1.75 per cent, and the dividend that would be expected on diesel fuel, which is closer to 10 per cent. There may well be good environmental reasons for that; I can certainly think of some very good environmental reasons why we would make a decision to operate that way. But that issue has never been raised, other than by me at this time, and it is an issue that also needs to be answered.
Similarly, the officers briefing us were asked about home heating oil - the stuff that is normally used for home oil furnaces - as opposed to diesel oil for home heating and we were not able to get a definitive answer on whether that fuel is taxed. They think at this stage that it is taxed at the same level as we are proposing to tax the diesel fuel, but that is something they were not able to tell us. It is still open because they were not able to give us a definitive answer.
It seems to Ms Szuty and me that at this stage there are still too many questions unanswered, and before we are prepared to support this Bill we want to have those questions answered. There is still time to have them answered we are sitting for another two days. It is for those reasons in particular that when Ms Szuty speaks she will be moving to adjourn the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .