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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1996 ..

MR SPEAKER: Well you may ask. Have we finished? Mr Berry, have you withdrawn?

Mr Berry: I did that.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR HUMPHRIES: He has withdrawn. Thank you. It is nice to get it off his chest, I am sure. The comparison was very clear in that release. It may be argued that a better comparison would be one which included local government taxes and charges and fees. The problem with that proposition is that it is very difficult to get an up-to-date picture of the level of taxes and charges and fees levelled at local government level across hundreds and hundreds of local government areas in this country. Figures are occasionally produced, I understand, by bodies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics-not necessarily the ABS but bodies such as that-but there are no recent figures available, I understand, on that subject.

I stand by my statement, but I invite Mr Quinlan to find me more relevant data than the ones that I have used. I have used the best up-to-date data with respect to those matters. I think it is quite likely that the integration of local and state-type government in the ACT has helped us to reduce the cost, relative to other jurisdictions, of providing local government services. It is quite likely on that comparison that we compare very favourably with other parts of Australia. But the figures are not available one way or the other.

Another point needs to be made about this whole debate. We have argued that the ACT is not overtaxed. The Labor Party has argued that we are overtaxed, apparently, or at least that we are quite heavily taxed and we should be less heavily taxed than we are. My understanding of the Australian Labor Party is that it is a party that believes in high taxation to be able to fund a higher level of government services. You believe in high tax to pay for high levels of government services. You have never been a low-taxing party. You do not believe in that. That is my understanding of the Australian Labor Party's position. That is what I have always thought it was about. Now it is arguing that the ACT is quite heavily taxed enough and that there is no need for extra taxes to be imposed. What is your position on these things? Do you think we should have more tax or less tax? Do you believe there ought to be some reduction in the ACT tax-

Mr Berry: It is a question. Would he like me to answer it. I am happy to answer it.

MR SPEAKER: No. Sit down. It is a rhetorical question.

MR HUMPHRIES: If so, do you think we should have a reduction in community services funded from those high taxes to be able to achieve more things as a community? I just do not know, Mr Speaker. What the Labor Party is saying is a reflection of the approach they are taking across the board with this budget. Any old line will do. Any other attack will do. On the day after the budget we heard someone-I forget who it was-an academic from the ANU, criticise the budget because the payroll tax base was being eroded. Mr Stanhope was sitting there listening to this comment, and the next thing you know, sure enough, out comes this criticism from Mr Stanhope: "Our payroll tax base is being eroded, blah, blah, blah."

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