Page 2625 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
then I think we have problems. The problems are, firstly, ego and, secondly, that the people do not understand what their government is doing.
The Treasurer says we are not going to use the Australian Accounting Standards any more, except when it delivers a really big surplus, and then we are going to muddy the waters. Depending on the standard used, we have $176 million for the year just finished as a surplus or a deficit of either $92 million or $123 million. So we can say, “Gee, which one will I choose?” It is very confusing for the public. They are told that there will be enormous rate increases, that we are moving to WPI because it is fairer, that we have got to have courage and guts and determination to change where we are going as a territory because we are broke, and then we record this record surplus. I think there needs to be some consistency of approach in what the Treasurer presents to the public. That leads then to the accuracy of the data. What is it that we are actually comparing, and how can we have confidence and faith in it? I refer again to budget paper No 3. It states:
An important element of the government’s strategy in the 2006-07 budget is to move the ACT away from its reliance on land sales revenue to finance the operating budget.
I would like the Treasurer, in his response to our comments, to tell us what percentage overall of the budget comes from land sales. I am interested to know what reliance we are moving away from, because the vast bulk of monies received actually come from the commonwealth and from other sources. Yes, revenue from land sales and conveyancing, as well as land tax and all those sorts of things, are important. But we have created this straw man that it is land that has been keeping us afloat.
Land sales are important but, as we move away from reliance on land sales, what are the options? What is the answer, the strategy? Where will the revenue come from in the future to provide the nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers on the street and the childcare protection workers and emergency services workers? Where is it going to come from? It will come from taxes on land. We are going to up the rates. We are going to put a land use utility permit on land. We are going to go back and tax you on the thing that we say we want to move away from.
The illogical nature of what the Treasurer proposes is exposed, and that further exposes the fact that they are bereft of ideas to broaden the actual tax base in the ACT. Let us go back three or four years and look at some of the ill-founded proposals that have floundered under this government. The 2003 rating policy did not go ahead. The bushfire tax from 2003 did not go ahead. The loan security duty of 2003 did not go ahead. The parking space tax of 2003 did not go ahead. The city heart tax of 2005 is still delayed because nobody can work out how to apply it, what to do with it and who is to run it. The motor vehicle tax of 2006, which would impose a tax on vehicles based on their list price rather than the actual price, went as well. Of course, there was the debacle of the homebuyer concession scheme in 2004.
The history of the reform of revenue raising under this government is an absolute disaster. The taxes and the revenue that we seek to raise this year will compound that disaster. I am very grateful that one of the few complete answers in the estimates process was in relation to WPI and what it will raise. For those that do not know, there is a lovely chart, table 1.1.2 on page 6 of budget paper No 3—it is included just about every year—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .