Page 3196 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The property council says that the emergency services levy is a fine thing as long as only householders pay it; it is no longer a fine thing when the commercial sector is invited to contribute to the safety of the city. It is the same philosophy that Mr Mulcahy and the opposition would apply to land tax: land tax is probably okay because we need the money, we do have a narrow revenue base, but it is not fine when applied at a level needed to meet your service delivery commitments if you are applying it to a particular sector, so let us broaden the base.
The difficulty with this motion is that it sends the signal that the Liberal Party wish either to abolish land tax or to spread the burden of it to every ratepayer, to every household in the ACT. If that is not what the Liberal Party intend in this motion, why are we having the debate? Why have they moved the motion? Why are they damning land tax, other than to send the signal that in government they will remove this tax; in other words, they will forgo $65 million in revenue raised through land tax? If that is the case, which services are you going to cut? Which hospital services will no longer be delivered? In the context of education, you have already announced that you will not close any schools, so what are you going to do in education with this lack of $65 million?
If that is not what the motion is about, what is it about? It is about the shadow Treasurer sending the signal today that, in addition to the $20 million from the emergency services levy that the Liberal Party intend to forgo in government, as announced by Mr Pratt, and in addition to the $20-plus million from the water abstraction charge that they intend to forgo, as announced by Mrs Dunne, they are prepared to forgo $65 million of land tax. And to the $65 million of land tax that they are prepared to forgo you now need to add the $16 million of utilities facilities charge, which the shadow Treasurer attacked yesterday and in today’s paper says is an unfair burden on business.
Members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: If it is an unfair burden on business, if it is an unacceptable tax, if it is a tax that the opposition oppose, we are entitled to assume that the opposition will not collect it. We are entitled to assume from the shadow Treasurer’s remarks that they will not impose the utilities facilities charge. We are entitled to assume from Mrs Dunne’s comments, as the relative spokesperson, that they will not collect the water abstraction charge. Mr Pratt at least has been explicit and is on the Hansard record as saying that over his dead body will the emergency services levy be collected.
Members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: This is not a laughing matter. We have an opposition on the public record as bluntly opposing over $100 million of ACT revenues. You cannot with any legitimacy sit on the opposition bench and spout policy positions that involve the abolition of over $100 million worth of taxes and not tell us what you will do in return. Where will the money come from? Mr Mulcahy today has made an impassioned and strong speech about the evils of land tax. But he cannot with any credibility stand in this place and speak so violently against land tax and then stand up in government and say, “Oh, well, ignore everything I said about land tax; we are not changing it; we are not abolishing it.” Is the agenda to spread the burden of the tax? Will they spread the burden of the tax to every householder in the ACT? Is the Liberal Party’s agenda to increase
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .