Page 1044 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are also aware of concerns within the retail motor vehicle industry about the lack of consultation on the nature and details of this duty regime. Indeed, the industry was kept in the dark about this scheme. The industry only found out the details of the scheme by accident, and this was only just before the proposal was to be debated in the Assembly.
The reasons for moving for disallowance of this duty regime today are to provide the Stanhope-Gallagher government with the opportunity to engage in effective consultation with the ACT motor industry on the arrangements for this policy; to allow them to implement a structure of motor vehicle duty that is fair and equitable to those who wish to buy vehicles; and to remedy an anomaly with respect to vehicles that have been used for demonstration purposes.
I dealt at length with the lack of effective consultation that the Stanhope-Gallagher government undertook with the industry when I opposed the bill last year. Sadly, since that time, I have become aware of additional details of how the industry was not involved with this policy which simply serve to emphasise the failure of the Stanhope-Gallagher government to consult as legislation is prepared. The reality is that the Stanhope-Gallagher government is so arrogant that it believes it does not need to consult, as has been the case on so many other matters.
What has been put in place is a scheme that discriminates against small business, it is a scheme that discriminates against families and it is a scheme that provides questionable environmental benefits. Indeed, the duty regime as it currently exists is nothing more than a tax on small business and on families which have to buy particular types of new vehicles, and often these are large vehicles. For those people with families who are required to buy larger vehicles that are determined to fall into the category of being a D-rated vehicle, they will incur an increase of up to 33 per cent in stamp duty on what would otherwise have been paid. So if a vehicle in this category costs $25,000, rather than having a stamp duty of $750, that duty will now be $1,000. That is an increase of 25 per cent.
This is a tax on families, because many families now have to buy vehicles that enable them to fit their family into one vehicle in safety. This is a tax on families at a time when economic circumstances place increased pressure on many families and simply demonstrates how caring the Stanhope-Gallagher government really is. Simply, it could not care less.
For those small businesses that use vehicles such as HiLux and Navaras, which are standard utes, as commercial vehicles for their operations, they will now pay a higher rate of duty under this proposal. The reality of the proposal, therefore, is that it is another tax on local business. It is a tax on tradies—on those small businesses that rely on particular vehicles for their activities.
There are other matters in this context that need to be mentioned. The proposal is flawed because of the narrow understanding of environmental “friendliness”. The proposal uses the green vehicle guide as the basis for determining the rate of different vehicles. But the green vehicle guide, as it is presently constructed, tests vehicles only
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .