Page 3195 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
relatively affordable. Indeed, the Real Estate Institute of Australia consistently reports that the ACT is the most affordable place in Australia.
Rents will move up and down depending on market conditions. The relative affordability of rents has not been subject to the same fluctuations as house prices. In fact, as a share of household income, median rents are only slightly higher than the average over the last 10 years. Those are the facts. The opposition, however, would have us believe that nobody can afford to live in the ACT and that this is the only city in which rents are rising. The evidence does not support that view.
It is interesting that in the speech we have just heard from the shadow Treasurer he said that the evil, the bogey, in the ACT is land tax. The opposition signalled today that they will abolish, reduce or spread the burden of land tax across all ratepayers. But the opposition cannot come into this place, put up a motion like this damning land tax, saying how inequitable it is, how unfair it is and how it is blighting the territory, and not suggest what they will do as an alternative. The shadow Treasurer, through this motion, has now added to the string of announcements or pronouncements that the Liberal Party has made over the last three months. Steve Pratt, on behalf of the Liberal Party, has announced that the emergency services levy will be abolished.
Mr Mulcahy: It’s not our policy.
MR STANHOPE: It has been announced by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party have announced that the emergency services levy will be abolished—$20 million gone. Mrs Dunne has announced that the Liberal Party will not support the water abstraction charge—another $20 million gone. Mr Pratt has announced that pay parking will be abolished at the hospitals and reviewed across the ACT. Mr Mulcahy today essentially signals that land tax will be abolished—$65 million.
Mr Mulcahy: Review it.
MR STANHOPE: If it is not to be abolished, what is this motion about? If it is not to be reduced, what is this motion about? If it is not to be reviewed with a view to removing it, what is the motion about? Why are we debating this if this is not a signal or an expression of intention by the Liberal Party to remove from the ACT’s revenues another $65 million, to go along with the $20 million that Steve Pratt has announced will be removed, to go along with the $20 million that Mrs Dunne has announced will be removed? Here we are—$100 million.
If this is not about removing land tax, it must be about a new arrangement for the collection of land tax, essentially broadening the base. How do you broaden the base in relation to land tax? You apply it to all ratepayers. There are three options here: cancel it, broaden the base or reduce it. Are they going to cancel it? They would not. That is $65 million. So are they going to halve it—let us say $30 million? Perhaps that is the option. Or are they going to broaden the base on which land tax is collected—in other words, protect their mates the investors and spread it across the community—and adopt, essentially, the attitude that the property council suggests we need to adopt in relation to the emergency services levy?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .