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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 734 ..

gambling, Mr Speaker. Let’s have no mistake about it. The evidence given to the committee bears that out. I will talk a little more about this when we get to recommendation 12, because I think it is important.

Recommendation 5 talks about minimising tax avoidance. I think we would all agree with that. If it is legitimate it should be done; if it is not legitimate then the government should make sure it gets all the revenue it can from the sources the legislation allows. Recommendation 6 is also about current taxes, and it asks the government to consider whether the taxes are regressive, whether that is a good thing and whether it should be looking for tax alternatives that are progressive.

I think it is fair to say that recommendation 7 will raise some interest out there in the community. The recommendation is that, “The Government assess the potential equity benefits of broadening the land tax base.” I think it is important. This is work that the committee is not able to do as it does not have the necessary number-crunching ability. The point that the committee wanted to make on this recommendation was simply that we have a narrow frame at the high end and some of the evidence given was that that is stifling investment, or that those charges are simply passed on to the tenants of those investment properties. Is there a way to reduce the impact on low-income earners and those in the private rental market by broadening the base? I think this will stimulate some debate in the community.

Recommendation 8 looks at reviewing the social and environmental sustainability of current taxes on motor vehicle ownership and use. If you talk about user pays, a relevant interesting question is: if you use a bigger vehicle and you use it more often, should you pay more for the registration? We have shied away from this for a long time simply because of an inability to collect the data. However, smart systems are now available that can tell us how many kilometres a vehicle is doing by providing tagging that allows that to happen. This raises the possibility that, if you are a part of the group that believe that motor vehicles are having a substantial impact on the environment, you could be asked to pay more for that ability.

Recommendation 9 asks the government to look at the efficiency of social, economic and environmental sustainability impacts of the current stamp duty system and, whether in connection with recommendation 7 or not, perhaps some conveyancing tax should go when it is considered in the context of the broader issue of land tax. Of course, that also ties up with recommendation 2, which is about the potential to abolish certain revenue through the intergovernmental agreement. When the GST was first put in place, some of the taxes that were mooted to go were stamp duties and payroll taxes, so these are all linked.

Recommendation 10 talks about how we might build a bigger base by providing incentives for attracting businesses to the ACT. It asks whether providing tax incentives is the best way. It asks why we do not look at other ways in which we might attract people to the ACT.

Recommendation 11 is very important given the social plan that we discussed yesterday in this place. It talks about having a comprehensive concessions policy. I note that the government, in its social plan, does talk about having that, but it has been going on for a long time. The former government established a review into the concessions that were in

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