Page 159 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a genuine concern that part of the revenue raised via this levy will in effect be used to cross-subsidise municipal services for public areas for which there is already budgetary provision. Nothing in the briefings that I have had—and, somewhat unusually, I have now had two briefings on this bill—has given me the confidence to dissuade the opposition from this concern.
There is a reasonable expectation that the revenue collected through rates and other ACT government charges should be sufficient to create a clean, safe and attractive location in the centre of Canberra for residents—and, indeed, our visitors—to enjoy. Private capital works, in our view, are in fact the responsibility of private landowners. The Liberal Party opposes the concept that private landowners should be taxed for the provision of private services.
Planning officials informed me in a briefing that this program would empower people to spend their money. That is an extraordinary concept—empower people to spend their money. I know of few Canberrans who need government assistance to empower them to spend their own money. Surely, if it wants to empower people to spend their own money, the government need only refrain from taking it in the first place.
If passed, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent. How many other commercial centres will be subject to a levy to pay for services for public areas that can rightfully be expected to be delivered through the normal, standard property rates? Will private individuals be taxed for the maintenance of private buildings?
This is an extraordinary initiative, especially since it is coming from a Labor government. Will there be a Woden heart levy? Will we have a Gungahlin heart levy? One wonders where this new approach to taxation in our city will stop. There is very clear evidence of cost shifting here. One has to ask how much of the $1.2 million that this levy is forecast to raise in each of the outyears will be spent on services that should be provided out of existing government charges or provided by individuals responsible for their own properties. For example, will it no longer be the responsibility of the Department of Territory and Municipal Services to ensure that the city centre is a clean and attractive location?
The Liberal Party is also opposed to the planned scope of the legislation. Put very simply, this legislation will introduce the mechanism to tax several hundred commercial property owners in Canberra who will in all likelihood pass it on to the many tenants in the impacted areas for the benefit of a certain select class of retailers. There is no doubt that a marketing campaign to promote the city will be of benefit to, in particular, city centre retailers, but we do not believe that everybody should have to pay for this benefit.
The Liberal Party would not have an issue with a voluntary levy; this would allow lessees of commercial property who feel that their businesses need this sort of investment to benefit from a pool of money for a marketing and improvement program. They could reap the rewards without placing an unwarranted and unjustified burden on others. If this concept is unsustainable, it would suggest that there is not the support or the need for a compulsory levy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .