Page 160 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Further, it is my understanding, from a briefing last week with Treasury officials, that the outer collection zone for the levy will even encompass Turner. I question why lessees in Turner should be subjected to a levy for the improvement of Civic. There are almost no similarities between, for example, a dentist operating in Turner and a restaurant or cafe in Garema Place. They do not share a locality, they do not share a similar business plan and the dentist in Turner will not benefit from this unfair compulsory imposition.
As I believe I have mentioned publicly previously—and I put it on the record here today—it is my understanding that Darwin, which had a similar levy, has recently scrapped it because of intense opposition, for the very reason that my example highlights. I have raised this in briefings; there is a general vagueness about it by officials, but it is very good evidence from another territory where, in the capital of that territory, they experimented with this particular tax, found it wanting and found that eventually people howled down the initiative.
Having given the example of the dentist in Turner not benefiting from this levy, I must also point out at this stage that nobody is quite sure just who in fact will benefit. This is because the destination of the revenue that this bill provides the mechanism for collecting is still being negotiated. The exact parameters for the spending of this revenue are yet to be settled. I am surprised that we are proceeding to vote on legislation when such a key consideration is far from settled.
I understand the need for a mechanism to be in place well ahead of collection of the levy, but I am concerned that a forecast $1.2 million is to be generated in the next financial year when we still do not know how it is going to be spent. We do not know exactly who is going to spend it, how they are going to be accountable or, indeed, what it is going to be spent on.
I understand from a briefing provided by the planning people that the proposal is for grants to be advertised every five years. Apparently their idea is that independent bodies will respond to the advertisement and the entity that can provide the best evidence for support from levy payers, an annual business plan and a five-year strategic plan will receive the whole amount raised by this levy. An extraordinarily complex structure is being contemplated, with the creation of a private company—an arrangement where levy holders are going to have to become shareholders in this new body. There is an extraordinary series of hoops to go through for a levy that is of questionable benefit.
This plan has to demonstrate a benefit for all of the levy payers. Apparently there is to be equal status for second-tier levy payers—those in the outer collection zone—in voting on this new entity that is yet to be created. After beginning with an interim board, within six months the successful applicant must appoint a board from all levy payers and then have an election. This is an extraordinary level of bureaucracy that has been dreamt up for this initiative.
While I appreciate the efforts of planning officials in giving the briefings that I received last week and yesterday, it must be noted that, because of the ongoing nature
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .