Page 3259 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having argued for it in 2006, I should not have to expand on why I think this is a small start to forming a new economy based on resource-use costs and pollution reduction incentives. I think Mr Mulcahy and the Liberal Party are going to have quite a few problems as we adjust to the reality of climate change. They are putting their heads in the sand. If they do not like this one, let us see the better one.
The government is crowing about this particular incentive whereby the purchase of a more efficient car leads to a lower tax and the more polluting car attracts a larger tax. It is a carbon tax, if you like. But it should not be an anomaly. There are plenty more opportunities, even in our small ACT economy, to apply such incentives to various taxation rates and duty measures. But let us stick to cars. Yes, it is fantastic that lower emission vehicles will not be paying stamp duty or will be paying lower stamp duty—we agree on that. But if we go back to my 2006 proposal, we will remember that the other side of car-related revenue adjustment is registration. I have not heard either Mr Mulcahy or the Liberals speak about that today. That is an equitable way of taxing high-emission cars.
Even Mr Rudd is proposing that this be a lever in pushing people towards low-emission cars, but it is a state and territory charge, and one that this territory could have taken the lead on. It is well and good to adjust a one-off tax, but it is the ongoing costs that people really notice and which, in the end, influence people’s spending patterns. Do people really decide on a car type based on a one or two per cent discount, or do they make their decision based on initial cost in tandem with how much the annual and weekly on-road costs will be? I have seen people paying over $100 at the petrol bowser, and this explains why there are so many large four-wheel drives sitting on the corner of streets with big “for sale” signs on them. People are getting rid of them; they are making these changes already.
The Bracks review, which was recently published, proposed harmonising stamp duties as well as car registration. But the government’s own sustainable transport plan says in paragraph 3.1 that it wants to encourage the use of more resource-efficient and low-emission private motor vehicles through regulation and pricing of vehicle registration, reduction in stamp duty et cetera. Although this plan was introduced in April 2004—over four years ago—such measures are yet to be implemented. Indeed, with its focus on roads, last week’s plan was a step backwards from the sustainable transport plan. Today’s proposal is the first step towards implementation of any of this goal, which I am sure that the Liberals endorsed with the sustainable transport plan, but we have only two sitting weeks left before the election.
I had to laugh when I read my 2006 speech on this proposal where I said:
… we hope that … the government will come back with its own initiative and claim it for itself later on … I look forward to seeing it when it comes back from the government … certainly before the next election …
How spot on I was, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was not the first time it was raised, either. The report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of February 2004 titled Revenue raising issues in the ACT recommended that the ACT government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .