Page 4224 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let me be very clear about this: the government has complied with the motion passed by this Assembly. The government has provided a significant degree of analysis on the impact of tax reform above and beyond what we already tabled in the Assembly by way of a taxation review, the 2012-13 and 2013-14 budgets and associated papers outlining the government’s tax reforms. The Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate have confirmed that the package of materials tabled complies with the motion and includes “the other analysis of the impacts that taxation reforms implemented to date are expected to have over time”.
Privilege was not sought in respect of cabinet documents as there was no need to separately release any cabinet documents because they do not include any other analysis that has not already been tabled in response to this motion and in the taxation review and in the 2012-13 budget and the 2013-14 budget.
I note that the Clerk has raised an issue about an index outlining the date and author of documents. The documents that I tabled in response to the motion did have an index, but I accept that it could have been clearer, to comply with standing order 213A. Subsequent to the Clerk’s advice, a formal index has been tabled.
Subsection (1) of Mr Smyth’s motion is totally incorrect. We have released the analysis that relates to the motion. And we have claimed no privilege on these or other documents. The documents from the taxation review and the past two budgets that I have tabled clearly meet the intent of the motion to provide analysis of the impacts of taxation reforms.
Not only have we complied with the Assembly motion but, in order to assist members, I have provided a further analysis to put into context the documents that were tabled. This extra analysis shows clearly to the Assembly and to the public at large the issues that the opposition have been struggling to understand. The opposition have absolutely no basis to support their claim that documents have not been tabled. The only conclusion that can be drawn from Mr Smyth’s motion is that he is embarrassed by his party’s misleading claims in the last election campaign.
Let me be clear: the medium-growth scenario outlined within the documents that were tabled shows stamp duty in the territory reducing by 100 per cent in 20 years and rates increasing in real terms by approximately 100 per cent over 20 years.
This motion is a stunt. Further evidence is provided by the advice provided to the Speaker by the Clerk on this matter:
What does seem clear is that the Assembly did not ask for all modelling that had been conducted into the ACT Government’s tax reform.
As such, in tabling the documents that we did, it is clear that the government has unambiguously met the requirements of the Assembly motion. Nevertheless, in order to comply with the requirements and the spirit of the motion of 19 September, substantial additional documentation on the impacts of taxation reform was tabled. If you look at the documents that were tabled, the taxation review, the 2012-13 budget
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video