Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1614 ..
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Kaine, you will have the opportunity either to seek leave to speak again or to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, if Mr Kaine is saying a levy on rates, we are getting back to the poll tax. We are getting back to a levy, an amount of money on everyone.
Mr Kaine: No, we are not. Rubbish!
MS CARNELL: There is not another way to go. You can only have it as a percentage or as a flat amount. There is not another way to go. Just because those opposite have not thought it through is not my problem, Mr Speaker, it is theirs. Mr Speaker, we can have a levy. That is not a problem. If those opposite want to bring it forward we will look at it seriously, although I have to say I would be very interested to know what those - - -
Ms Tucker: It is a pity you did not do it before.
MS CARNELL: I think it is a dreadful idea.
Ms Tucker: It is a pity you did not ask for other input before.
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I think it is a dreadful idea, but if Mr Kaine wants a levy on rates, as he said, a flat amount no matter whether you live in Banks or Forrest, let him bring that forward. That is what a levy is. Alternatively, we can have a percentage on rates. That again ends up with the inequity problem, Mr Speaker. We do have a flat charge, but our rates, predominantly, are still based on unimproved capital value. Again that means that no matter how big your house is or whether you have lots of antique clocks in it that you are insuring, you will end up paying the same. It will not matter what you are insuring; what will matter will be the unimproved value of the bit of ground you are on. Mr Speaker, I cannot believe that those who get up in this place time and time again and try to speak about equity and equality think that that is equitable. Mr Speaker, the approach that - - -
Mr Quinlan: Read the stuff from South Australia and Western Australia.
MS CARNELL: Read the stuff from New South Wales. Mr Speaker, Ms Tucker made the point - I assume she will now withdraw it - that New South Wales also had an inquiry that said this was an inequitable way to go. That is absolutely at odds, Mr Speaker. New South Wales had an inquiry by the Auditor-General in 1994, I think, which suggested that this was the most equitable way to go and it was an approach that should be continued. So that is absolutely wrong, Mr Speaker.
In terms of an equitable way to go - sorry about this - I think personally that people in the $2m house and with the French clock collection should potentially pay more than the person in the $100,000 house and with no French clocks. Sorry about that, Mr Speaker, but that is equity. Equity is not what those opposite have spoken about at all. It is not what Mr Kaine wants to do with a poll tax. It is not what Kerrie Tucker is speaking about at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .