Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 1521 ..
MS TUCKER: I am pleased to see that the committee is looking at this issue. I did ask that they do this in respect of one centre where there was a great deal of concern in the community that variation No. 64 was going to be a mechanism for total developer-run development that did not take into account what the local community wanted to happen. I agree that the intention of the variation was to revitalise centres. That certainly needs to happen, but we really need to make sure that it happens in an appropriate way and that we are not just revitalising the pocket of some developer. I am glad to hear that the committee is looking at this, and I will take an ongoing interest in the work.
Motion (by Mr Humphries) agreed to:
That orders of the day Nos 2 to 8, Executive business, be postponed until the next day of sitting.
Debate resumed from 25 June 1998, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR QUINLAN (6.22): Mr Speaker, the Opposition does not intend to oppose this Bill. We do not like to see any additional imposts upon business in the ACT. However, this tax, it appears, is being applied fairly and equitably. I have sought and been given a briefing, during which I was assured that the impact on workers compensation premiums is very marginal, a small fraction of one per cent. Therefore we do not oppose the Bill.
MR KAINE (6.23): Mr Speaker, I have no objection to this Bill but I have one question about it. I notice that the Minister, in tabling this Bill, indicated approximately how much the levy would raise, that is, about $300,000 a year. What he did not do was tell us how much of that he expects to spend for the purposes for which the tax is being collected. In other words, is this a reasonable amount to collect in light of the expense that is likely to be incurred, or are we going to see a bank account within the department building up with the proceeds of this tax which in essence will become Consolidated Revenue? Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether that is the case or not.
MS TUCKER (6.23): The Greens will not be opposing this Bill either. Basically, we are reassured that it does not affect individual workers. Workers in receipt of compensation payments or in the process of claiming for them have enough of a task against them without having to worry about costs along the way. As this amendment directs costs to the other players, appropriate players hopefully, I support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .