Page 2593 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, as I said at the outset, the opposition will be supporting this bill. It will provide some up-front relief for people entering the housing market. It must be noted, of course, that it will not provide any relief from ACT government charges which, as we are all aware, have been increasing quite dramatically over the last two years. Home owners not only have to meet the purchasing price of the house, but also, because of this government, pay more in local government charges than they ever have before and across a range of different areas of activity, which is becoming an area of increased concern amongst this community, reflected by more and more people writing to me expressing their amazement. I am a little amazed that it has taken some of them 15 months to work it out, particularly on things such as the utilities tax. People are writing in saying, “What is this? When did this come in?” because they have not caught on to the fact that it was very ingeniously applied through other parties such as your gas, electricity, telephone provider or other utility provider.
It is a cunning tax in that it is hard to identify quickly. Its description tells you almost nothing in terms of utility network facilities tax—I think that is how it appears on people’s accounts. But, of course, what we do know is that this is the handiwork of the Stanhope government finding another way to relieve the people of Canberra of something in the order of $16 million in a full financial year. So for those home owners, or prospective home owners, who think that they are about to land on their feet as a result of this measure, be wary of the other tax traps that await you courtesy of the Stanhope government.
It is all very well, of course, for the government to speak loudly about their attempts to make housing more affordable but they must also acknowledge that they are collecting more from those same residents that they purport to be helping. Amongst other things, last year’s budget increased rates. It increased the water abstraction charge, introduced the fire and emergency services levy and, as I said a moment ago, the utilities network facilities tax. That is hundreds of extra dollars out of the pocket of each and every Canberran to pay for, at best, the same services and, in reality, at a standard that is below what residents have a right to expect.
So it is a bit like going out to a restaurant, paying twice as much for what you want to eat but getting nothing more for your value. That is the way business is done in this town now. I think it is lamentable that, in a time when we are trying to help younger families in particular to move into the area of home ownership, they are going to be hit with this raft of taxes and charges that have never before been seen in this territory. Hundreds of extra dollars out of the pocket of each and every Canberran are paying, in effect, for the same services at best and, reality suggests, probably for a standard of service that is now below what residents have a reasonable right to expect.
We are told these higher taxes and charges are necessary because the provision of them in the ACT costs 22 per cent more than elsewhere. One therefore would suggest that maybe we should look at the way in which we manage them and the efficiencies, as even the economic rationalists within the government’s ranks, I am sure, must shudder at the idea that you say, “Costs have gone up 22 per cent so therefore you increase your charges.” Never ever let it be suggested that we actually look at issues of efficiency and good management and efficient delivery. No, let us just say: let the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .