Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1604 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Another significant understatement would be to say the ACT Government was going against the trend. There are many reports going back 20 years which all describe the inequities and unsustainability of this type of tax. But allow me to quote from the most recent interstate report, completed in May this year:

At least five reviews conducted over the last 20 years have concluded that the current system for funding the delivery of emergency services in South Australia is inequitable, inefficient, lacks transparency and impedes the capacity of Emergency Service to deliver services to the community to meet genuine needs.

The Steering Committee (the Government sponsored Steering Committee) is of the opinion that the facts are unarguable. The current funding arrangements clearly are inequitable and unsustainable. Being based largely on an insurance premium levy, people who fully insure are subsidising those who do not fully insure. Property holders who choose not to insure are also choosing not to make a fair contribution to the cost of protecting their lives, families, property and the community and environment in which they live.

Everyone in the community has a right to expect access to affordable services (universal access) for the protection of life, property and the environment, and everyone has a responsibility to make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of doing so.

But the ACT Government would not know anything about this because, quite evidently, they did not make the effort to find out. They were preoccupied with finding a name or a label to give an additional form of taxation.

This Government consistently rely heavily on consultants. They will no doubt be moved by the recently released Arthur Andersen report, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia, that examined the ACT Government's proposal and concluded:

It is our opinion that the policy underpinnings of the proposed ACT legislation are inappropriate, out of step with community requirements and expectations and contrary to the consistent acknowledgment throughout most Australian jurisdictions that insurance-based funding of emergency services produces outcomes which are inequitable, unfair and inefficient.

It is clear to any objective observer that this type of levy is unfair, inequitable and ill-considered. There is no avoiding the fundamental flaw that people who do insure are subsidising those who do not and those who underinsure. Everybody is a potential user of emergency services - not just those who insure. At this point I will read from a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times. It purported to be a leaked document, but it was obviously a parody on the Government's current approach and deserves to be aired. It reads:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .