Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 367 ..
MS CARNELL: I do not believe that is the case at all. I do not have to put a positive light on the contracts. We are quite happy to stand right behind them. From the annual reports last year, we have put on the public record exactly how much the maximum assurance was from the ACT Government over the five-year period to all three codes. I have absolutely no problems with that at all. The codes produce significant dollars for the ACT economy - - -
Mr Hird: And jobs.
MS CARNELL: And jobs, as Mr Hird says. The maximum assurance has been on the public record since last year. The $1.37m to the Raiders is a maximum assurance. Even last year not nearly that amount was paid. In fact, I think assurances across all three codes was $1.2 m. If crowd numbers continue at their current level, if we have success with naming rights and other things, that amount will come down significantly.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain to the Assembly how the decision to exempt two particular ACT government services from the GST, but not others, was made? I notice from the list of exempt items agreed to by the Federal Treasurer that the fee paid by outdoor cafes for occupying public space is GST exempt, as is the fee for the use of public land, of green areas, for storage during construction projects and for short-term commercial use. I also notice that the fee for hiring sporting grounds is not exempt. Why is it that commercial organisations do not have to pay the GST for using public space but non-profit community bodies such as junior sporting organisations do?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I will get the details Mr Hargreaves seeks on that matter, but 40 or 50 pages of exemptions were tabled by the Federal Treasurer a few weeks ago. I do not have the details, but essentially the distinction between being GST exempt and being subject to GST is whether or not the activities concerned amount to commercial-type activities by government. I have seen a media release from somewhere in the Opposition criticising the fact that there is GST on the merry-go-round. The fact is that the merry-go-round is a commercial activity. There are private sector merry-go-rounds, and if there is a government-run merry-go-round it ought to be subject to the GST, in order to be on the same level playing field as the private sector competitors. That is fairly clear.
Where activities are carried on by government with respect to the marketplace, where it is providing a commercial service for which a fee is collected, then appropriately I think GST ought to be attracted on that fee. In other circumstances where it is providing a community-based benefit which is not commercial, then it should not. I do not have the details of the particular cases Mr Hargreaves has mentioned, but I will find those and provide the answer.
MR HARGREAVES
: Mr Speaker, my supplementary question is: Given the examples I have just given of two uses of public space, one by commercial people who do not have to pay the GST and would appear capable of doing so, and the other by junior
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .