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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1622 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

They want it to be put on ratepayers. It is of no concern to them when it is on ratepayers. Probably it is a matter that they do not care one hoot about because they do not have to worry about it if it is on ratepayers. Mr Speaker, we do have to worry about that, and we think we have a more equitable way of dealing with this issue.

Mr Quinlan quoted the Property Owners Association, and that really fascinated me. The Property Owners Association spokesman is Mr Peter Jansen.

Mr Hargreaves: A former Liberal candidate.

MR HUMPHRIES: A former Liberal candidate, indeed. I emphasise the former, very much, in that description. Mr Jansen has a number of organisations at his disposal, one of which is the Ratepayers Association of the ACT. Do you suppose that Mr Jansen is arguing in this place that instead of it being placed on insurance holders it be placed on ratepayers? Is the president of the Ratepayers Association of the ACT arguing that it should be an imposition on ratepayers? I do not think so, Mr Speaker. That was a very amusing contribution to the debate.

Mr Kaine said earlier today that we should be honouring the Estimates Committee report and not rejecting it. I do not think that Mr Kaine has read the Estimates Committee report because it assumes that the levy should be imposed. I take the report as an endorsement of the levy because it recommends, not that we reject the levy, as it has suggested we reject other elements of the Government's budget; it says we should accept the levy on the basis that we monitor it over the next couple of years. So, Mr Speaker, I invite Mr Kaine to do what he lectured us earlier today to do - to accept the recommendations of the Estimates Committee in this area.

Mr Kaine argued that it is not a levy, it is a tax. I have already addressed that issue. Mr Speaker, we have never made any pretence about our following what New South Wales is doing in this matter. We have picked up the New South Wales scheme as much as possible and applied it in the ACT. Everybody knows that in New South Wales the levy is in turn passed on to policyholders. Everybody knows that in New South Wales it is a tax, in effect, on insurance policies. Mr Kaine made the interesting point that pensioners do not have the capacity to pay. Pensioners who believe that are again relying on propaganda issued by the insurance companies, and there has been plenty of that. That is true, Mr Speaker.

It is a great pity that members in this place have chosen to work with the insurance companies in this misinformation campaign, a great pity indeed. There is no reason, as I have explained, why the insurance levy need be any higher than in New South Wales. Indeed, I suspect that if we levied the levy at New South Wales rates we would get a higher amount of money than the $10m the Government has predicated.

Now, what evidence do I have to say that? Mr Speaker, my evidence is the subterfuge that the insurance companies have been involved with. I have written to the insurance companies asking them to justify the claim that they have made that there is actuarial proof that the levy will impact more heavily in the ACT than in New South Wales. I have asked them for that information. They have said that we have this Arthur Andersen study and this proves that it is going to impact more heavily than in New South Wales.

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