Page 3611 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in other words, exactly the situation that we are faced with today if this motion is successful -
the previous law is revived from and including the date on which the relevant law ceased to have effect, as if the relevant law had not been made.
So, Madam Speaker, let us have no hysterical, cheap press releases on this occasion.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.27): Madam Speaker, I will address my remarks only to Mr Humphries's motion to disallow determination No. 137 of 1994, which provides for the increase in petrol and diesel fuel franchise fees in the ACT. As Mr Humphries has rightly pointed out, you need to be aware that, if the Assembly passes this motion, it will be denying the Territory some $600,000 in revenue in a full year. That is the $600,000 that would be gained by the indexation of the franchise fee.
I want to take issue slightly with Mr Humphries on the remark that he made in concluding his speech. It is my belief that, if the motion were passed, there could be some confusion about its impact. The motion, as it stands, gives the impression of abolishing the full petroleum franchise fee. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to accept what Mr Humphries means. I think we know what he means. I accept that he does not intend to place that $26.1m in jeopardy. Nevertheless, I have to say to him that the drafting of his motion could cause some confusion, and we would have to rely on alternative measures to protect the base of that petrol franchise fee. Madam Speaker, the advice that I have is from both the Revenue Office and the Attorney-General's office.
Mr Humphries: Will you table that advice, Chief Minister?
MS FOLLETT: No, I will not. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to accept what Mr Humphries says; but I do urge him to be cautious in the way that he drafts these matters, because it can be confusing. I expect that the Attorney-General will want to address that matter further. Nevertheless, even the loss to our revenue of $600,000 would need to be funded in some way. Of course, Mr Humphries has given us no indication of how that $600,000 might be found. There is a limited number of means available. They include things like expenditure cuts, fewer teachers or nurses and fewer community services. We could increase some other tax that Mr Humphries has not addressed or we could borrow another $600,000. They are the alternatives. But Mr Humphries, in his grandstanding on this issue, has simply not been responsible enough to address that matter.
Madam Speaker, it is a fact that in the 1993-94 budget the Government announced its intention to index the fuel tax annually in line with the New South Wales indexation. This could hardly have come as a surprise to anybody. The policy was announced well over a year ago. Again, as Mr Humphries pointed out, it was implemented last year as well. So, this movement to index in line with the New South Wales CPI can hardly be a surprise. Indeed, the action was foreshadowed again in the 1994-95 budget papers. So, the Opposition cannot claim that this determination is not part of a previously foreshadowed Government policy, a policy that has been known for well over 12 months.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .