Page 1887 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, it is the first budget of a four-year term and the government has indicated its commitment to having a surplus at the end of this term, so we will be looking to see whether it can deliver this and at what cost.
The major revenue initiative of this budget is socially regressive. The increase to land tax rates may be a significant impost on many low-income households. At a time when land values have increased, this tax will be particularly hard for some members of our community. It is ironic, at a time when the government acknowledges that there is a housing crisis and keeps reiterating a commitment to making housing more affordable, that the one major revenue initiative in this budget makes housing less affordable for many households. In the suburbs with the highest rates, such as Ainslie and Yarralumla, we find the highest concentrations of the elderly, many of whom are asset rich, in that they own their house, but income poor.
The Greens believe in using taxation to achieve social equity and environmental sustainability by encouraging a fair distribution of income and wealth, improving ecological sustainability through the adoption of incentives for sustainable use and penalties for unsustainable use of natural resources, and reducing taxes on labour and increasing taxes on resource use and pollution. The government could have considered innovative ways of taxing. For example, I would like to draw attention to the car registration schemes in South Australia and Tasmania where registration is based on the power of the cars. So, for example, four-wheel drives have a higher registration. I am just assuming that applies to four-wheel drives in the city, because I think there are valid reasons why four-wheel drives in the country should not be subject to the higher registration. New South Wales is considering adopting this scheme and I feel that it is one that we could look at here, for a number of reasons.
I believe a committee of this Assembly did an inquiry into alternative ways of revenue raising. I will be looking at that and I will be interested to see if the government has actually implemented any of that committee’s recommendations.
Before moving to specific comments, I would like to briefly flag my interest in the new look of the budget and the attempt to incorporate triple bottom line reporting measures. The government should be congratulated on this. However, I do have some concerns with some of the indicators and so I flag that this is an area that we will look at further and also seek advice from the community sector about the adequacy of those indicators. That aside, I still think it is an important initiative being trialled in this budget. I note that this is its first go and I hope the government will respond to critical input.
The first of the specific budget measures that I will deal with is environment, planning and transport. This is definitely not a ‘green’ budget. Our key concerns include: the six per cent cut to Environment ACT; a potential cut of six per cent to the Conservation Council of Canberra and the region; the failure to increase resources to the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment; no ongoing funding for the solar hot water rebate scheme; only $1 million of the $4 million promised to retrofit some public housing; no $5 million for energy audits in ACT schools as promised; a lack of funds for ecological rehabilitation of catchments; and no additional funding for water conservation measures.
The government was elected on a strong environmental platform and it was very interesting during the election to see the leaflets and the statements in the media that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .