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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 444 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

To some extent that does have the spin-off that we are entitled to a little bit of payroll tax. We are able to charge these people rent on the premises that they use. There is a minor benefit, but there is a significant shortfall in the payments we receive from our major industry compared to the major industries that operate in other States.

If you are considering increasing taxation, surely the Government would accept the criteria put forward by the Productivity Commission, an economically rational think tank, although I think they are only locals. In their report, "Directions for State Tax Reform", they include the following four headings: Efficiency, equity, administration and compliance, and stability of the tax base. They are four very sound criteria, I might say, especially given that the Labor Party platform embraces almost the same terminology, and has done so for much longer. But, for the benefit of the Treasurer, the ALP platform includes the words: "We intend to ensure that the ACT taxation system is fair, equitable and progressive, and generates enough revenue for Government to ensure quality service provision".

Within that, efficiency requires that taxes do not distort economic activity to a great degree, that they are difficult to avoid, and generally assist future development in the Territory rather than providing a barrier to same. Equity requires that in general taxes are either progressive at best or neutral at worst. I will repeat that. Equity requires that general taxation is either progressive at best or neutral at worst, meaning that those who can afford to pay do so, and those who cannot afford it pay much less. When you look at the taxes that we levy in the ACT you may be surprised to find that the Productivity Commission concluded that 14 of the different taxes we levy in the ACT are either highly or mildly regressive. This puts the lie to some extent to the Treasurer's claim of this being a clever and caring capital.

Administration and compliance are largely self-evident and relate to how much the Government can keep and what the costs are of administering those taxes. We recognise on this side of the house that a lot of work has been done within the ACT administration to bring in tighter legislation on tax, and for that the Government should be congratulated.

Finally, we must have taxes that do not affect the stability of the tax base or are levied on particularly volatile bases and then come to depend upon them. Forgive us if we do not recommend additional tax levels or new taxes, but we would like them, when and if they are introduced by government, to satisfy the criteria that we have mentioned.

If the Government intends to reduce expenditure - again, we are not playing the equivalent of the rule out game - I nevertheless am prepared to offer a few examples. First, let us focus on the Chief Minister herself. She does have quite substantial personal support. I think she could do without a few advisers. No, I do not want to cut jobs, but I believe that you could replace an adviser or two, appoint an ovals maintenance person or two, get a wad of change in salary saving and reduce the effort in addressing complaints from the people who did not have their ovals cut in the first place. Just for interest, I encourage members of this Assembly from time to time to take a wild guess at

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