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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 831 ..

Sadly, Totalcare has not been paying an income tax equivalent and has not been returning a profit to ACT taxpayers. There is reason to have a government business enterprise operating fleet management, road repair and non-essential laundry services only if these enterprises are returning a profit.

Once again I call on the government to make a courageous decision about Totalcare and to put an end to the unnecessary misallocation of taxpayers' moneys so that money can instead go to areas of greatest need.

MS TUCKER (10.38): The Greens will be supporting this bill. We understand it to be largely a machinery bill that arises from the government's commitment to national competition policy. Over a long period in this place, I have drawn attention to the inherent unsoundness of the national competition policy and its potential for limiting government's ability to act in the interests of its citizens, which should be a government's primary concern.

Having been locked into this process by government, we continue to challenge measures under the national competition policy that work against the public interest rather than for it. This bill, however, is benign in its effect and does not appear to compromise the public interest. It provides for a more consistent and transparent regime whereby government business enterprises pay to ACT consolidated revenue an equivalent to Commonwealth income tax, so that there is no unfair competition with private businesses. It is about keeping things ticking along in line with the principles of competition policy, which we can challenge but not on this bill.

This applies under competition policy where the government business enterprise is in competition with the private sector. I understand that all the GBEs to which it applies are already paying such an income tax equivalent. Indeed, I understand that some GBEs that have been paying under existing arrangements will be removed from the list of paying enterprises as it is deemed no longer appropriate in the case of their business dealings.

I understand that the GBEs concerned have been consulted and are prepared. On that basis and because of the improved transparency and efficiency the new arrangement promises, we are prepared to support the bill. While there is an element of retrospectivity involved, which we would normally be concerned about, this too is not such an issue in this legislation. I note that the scrutiny of bills committee did not raise serious concerns in this regard. Being a member of that committee, I am aware of that.

I trust that the new framework will deliver the benefits of consistency and transparency that the government hopes for. But I believe that there are still fundamental questions to be asked about turning certain government activities into businesses, causing them to operate as businesses. Totalcare is a good example which I think we will be debating soon.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (10.41), in reply: I thank members for their support of the bill. As Ms Tucker has rightly pointed out, it is largely a machinery bill that brings the ACT into line with a general memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the states on equivalent taxation regimes to put businesses on a level footing.

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