Page 4226 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
policy that was implemented, not in relation to all other policy options that may have been on the table but were in fact discarded. This is the information that Mr Smyth and the Canberra Liberals were essentially seeking, as I understood it, and therefore the amendment that I put forward was accepted by everyone in this place.
I have reviewed all of the documents—the letters and the advice from the Clerk—and it still remains that the question is: did the Treasurer table any other analysis of the impacts of the policy under discussion? I have reviewed what was tabled by the Treasurer on 31 October and can see that it certainly does contain information that answers the question about the impacts of the policy. Indeed, there is a very useful document that seeks to summarise and interpret the analysis that was undertaken, that had clearly been produced in response to the motion that was tabled, and that document is not an original document. It has been described as an overview of the analysis.
It appears to me that this document is actually additional to what has been requested, as the call for documents did not include documents that had not yet been created. However, I do believe it is an updated analysis and is helpful for those that are wanting to understand the situation.
Members interjecting—
MR RATTENBURY: Members, you might want to hear the next bit. The appendices to the documents that were called for do demonstrate the detail and the modelling and analysis of the impacts of the tax reforms which have been implemented. And I think that is the key point here, that the appendices provide the documents that were called for. And then there is an additional document.
Whilst members of the opposition may not be impressed by that summary, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the documents called for were provided, and that is the question that we have to resolve here today. I imagine that there was a range of modelling that was done to determine what the best kind of reform model should be. However, the papers tabled in the last sitting enable us to see exactly what modelling is used for the finally agreed reforms—and that really is the matter at hand—and what the financial impacts are in the short to medium term, both for the government and various ratepayers across different property values and suburbs.
So the key question for me remains this: is what the Treasurer tabled missing anything? Are there any further documents that have not been given to the Assembly following this call for documents? This motion is actually about contempt of the Assembly and is not about tax reform. That is not the matter at hand today.
I took the time over the lunch break to seek assurance from the Treasurer that there were no further documents because the Greens’ amendment to Mr Smyth’s motion in September was not designed to let the government off the hook about providing information to the Assembly or the community. This morning Mr Smyth quoted from my speech, and I think I was quite clear at that time that I felt there should be transparency in the information that was available to the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video