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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 736 ..

lack of detail in the government’s own submission, the fact that it limited its analysis to the ACT’s own source of revenue and the fact that there is very little mention of the GST, its implications and how we should be monitoring those. The government managed to leave about $109 million worth of revenue out of the information that it provided to the committee, which was about 10 per cent, so we thought there were some deficiencies in the submission. It is disappointing because it does limit the inquiry. We talked about it in the committee and we have decided to leave it at that.

Limited information was provided about the GST. The GST is a fact of life and it does provide a secure and substantial source of funds for states and territories. It should be recognised as that. To define revenue from the GST as Commonwealth grants is not appropriate. Let’s face it, they collect it, they charge us a small administration fee and it flows back, so it is hardly a grant. It is money that we are entitled to under the IGA and under the legislation. Perhaps the Treasurer will clear this up when he speaks to the government response to the report by indicating why the government took that path.

Mr Speaker, this report is a substantial body of work. It has taken a substantial amount of time, and we thank those who gave submissions. I think the small number of submissions indicates not a lack of interest but the lack of knowledge in the community about how revenue is raised and how it is expended. I think it behoves us, as the members of the Assembly, to make sure that the public is aware of how they are taxed.

I do not think it is a breach of standing order 241 to reveal that there was a lot of discussion in the deliberative phase of this inquiry. It took the committee months to come to the final document. In the main, it is a consensus report. It is what the three of us, representing our various entities and our membership of the committee, thought we could agree on. With that, I thank members for their commitment and, in particular, thank the secretary of the committee for her fine work in herding us through this maze, as she has done so well so often.

MS TUCKER (12.18): I will make a couple of comments. Mr Smyth has summarised the report well. I comment particularly on the committee’s position on the Grants Commission and revenue from gambling. I know it is not a new issue, but the fact that a committee of the Assembly has made a comment and recommendation to support any communication by the ACT government to the Commonwealth government regarding this matter I hope will be helpful. You cannot have a situation where a socially undesirable activity is being encouraged because of its potential for revenue raising.

Another interesting aspect of the report is the comments made generally on stamp duty, conveyancing and land tax. We have made a recommendation that the government has a good look at the impact of conveyancing and stamp duty on houses, because we know there is a vigorous debate in the community about the impact of this, not only because of its affect on society because of the difficulties it is presenting to first home buyers—or any home buyer, for that matter—but also with regard to its environmental implications. It is important for us to also take a broader look at land tax, the fact that it only applies to one sector at the moment and the impact that that is having on rental accommodation.

We had some really interesting evidence brought to the committee from tax academics that raised these broad questions for us to consider. It is a very helpful thing, because we all get caught up in how to apply the band aid, minimise the damage or try to deal with

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