Page 3223 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On Wednesdays of every sitting week, on every single private members’ day, I imagine that there has been at least one motion from the opposition which calls, in effect, for increased government spending. I am not quite sure why Ms Lawder’s motion, which was looking for mental health resources for deaf and deafblind residents, did not get debated. I assume that there would have been a cost in that.
Mr Wall: The services have been cut on your watch.
MS LE COUTEUR: Even if they are replacing services that have been cut, my point is that all these things have a cost. It does not appear that the opposition is looking to cut government services. In that case, it is hard to see how they can reasonably be suggesting cutting taxation. Obviously I have missed something here.
Both speakers talked about fairness in the taxation system. I think this is a very important issue. It is one that the Greens—me, in particular—having been banging on about all this term. Members will be aware that the government is undertaking a review of the rates system. We talked about this at some length in budget estimates. The review of the rates system is going to be looking at fairness, amongst other things. It is going to be looking at fairness in terms of individual people; it is going to be looking at fairness in terms of units versus houses.
I was really surprised that Mr Coe, in his speech, and Mr Barr did not bother quoting from the limited analysis that the budget already has on these issues. Mr Coe should remember, from the Seventh Assembly, his former colleague, Mr Smyth, introducing an amendment which meant that the budget paper is required to have a cost-of-living statement. That goes through, at some length, the cost of government charges and also the cost of utilities for different households in the ACT.
I think possibly more interesting is the socio-economic analysis which has been introduced in the last couple of years as a result of the Greens amendment to, I think, a motion by Mr Coe originally. If you look at that, you will find that, of the various households in the ACT, the one that is doing the worst is the Garran aged pensioner who would be paying probably 15 per cent of his or her income in rates. I am quite happy to agree with anybody that that is too high. These are the sorts of issues that need to be looked at. But if you look at that list of the amounts that people are paying, everyone else is paying quite a bit less than that.
I understand that, on average, rates are just under two per cent of the average ACT household’s income. It would be good to save that, sure, but in exchange for the government services that we get I do not think this is a particularly major issue.
I would like to have seen Mr Coe’s motion talk more about, as I said, the real issues: fairness, balance between units and houses, the role of deferrals, the role of concessions and particularly the role of market versus land value for our rating system. This is something the Greens have been talking about for some time, and I note that the New South Wales IPART has just recommended that in New South Wales councils should move to the market rate. That includes the house as well as the land for their rating system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video