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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1621 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

We heard from Mr Quinlan on an issue taken up by Ms Tucker. Mr Quinlan said that New South Wales and Victoria were looking for ways out of the levy. He has the views of Western Australia and South Australia in writing. You would think that he would be able to get the views in writing of his Labor colleagues in New South Wales. No, he did not. Mr Speaker, he knows that that is rubbish. To come back to what Ms Tucker had to say, she went one step further. She said that the New South Wales Government had a report which suggested that the levy was inequitable and it should move away from it. That is not so, Mr Speaker; quite the contrary. The New South Wales Government had a report in the last few years which recommended that they retain the levy and said that it was equitable.

Ms Tucker: Which year? Which year was that report?

MR HUMPHRIES: It was 1994. I know that because the person who conducted the report now works for the ACT Government. So, your information, Ms Tucker, which no doubt comes straight from the Insurance Council, is nonsense, like much else that you have been told by the Insurance Council in this debate. The fact is that most Australian policyholders have this levy imposed on their insurance policies, and we believe that that is an equitable way of dealing with this issue as well.

Clearly, people will not reinsure, Mr Quinlan tells us. That is not the experience in places like New South Wales and Victoria when the levy was first imposed. Levels of insurance did not change significantly at that time, so, why would it be any different in the ACT, particularly given - - -

Mr Quinlan: If your staff would answer the phone, mate, you would know. If you would take your phone calls in your office, you would know.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, I will come back to the point. Mr Quinlan says you have got the phone calls in your office. The reason we have all had phone calls in our offices and letters to us in our offices, Mr Speaker, is that the Insurance Council is running a disgraceful scare campaign on this levy. They are alleging that there will be a higher level of imposition on policyholders than is the case in New South Wales. Now, why should that be, because the level of the levy - that is, the $10m which the Government has set in this policy - is actually lower on a per capita basis than it is in New South Wales? If the New South Wales levy was applied exactly as it is in the ACT, assuming similar levels of insurance coverage, we would get more than $10m recovered under that program. The argument has been put, without any proof of it, that somehow there is a lower level of insurance in the ACT than in New South Wales.

I ask members to sit back for a minute. Put this propaganda from the Insurance Council to one side and have a think about it for a minute. Why would there be lower levels of insurance in the ACT than in New South Wales? We have a community with a higher per capita income, a higher disposable income, relatively well educated people, relatively affluent people. Why would they insure at a lower rate than in New South Wales? Of course, they would not. This is propaganda from the Insurance Council and, unfortunately, a lot of you people have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They are running a campaign against a tax because they do not want to have to administer the tax.

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