Page 3100 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


every possible source irrespective of policy commitments or the capacity to pay. I do not accept the minister’s claim that the increase was to be 100 per cent plus an allowance for CPI or WPI, or whatever it is that he meant. There is no mention of these factors in the explanatory statement, and I do not believe there is such an additional factor to be applied.

The minister needs to find a better excuse than he has come up with so far to justify his breaking of a clear commitment to increase these fees by 100 per cent. In the meantime he must withdraw this latest increase and put in place new fees that accurately represent the outcome of the commitment to increase these fees by 100 per cent. I would actually be delighted if he took the fees away because I think they have been increased way too harshly and way too quickly in too short a period of time.

This also raises an associated matter—the impact of these fees on businesses in different parts of Canberra. Within the tertiary category there could be scope for further disaggregation. Businesses operating in those areas, suburbs or similar locations where there is limited business outside normal work hours, particularly weekday work hours, could be subject to a lower level of fees. I am thinking of areas such as Fyshwick and suburbs where there is limited activity out of normal office hours.

To return to the main proposition, the instrument increasing these fees, DI 2007-159, should be disallowed so that the appropriate or promised fees levels can be implemented. I think the appropriate fee levels have already been well and truly crossed. The instrument should be disallowed so that equity can be restored to the businesses that are subject to these fees and so that the community can be protected from a decision of the Stanhope government that simply seeks to rip off revenue from the community over and above that which was committed.

One of the success stories of the Canberra community since the 1970s has been to take the legacy introduced by Gus Petersilka of cafes being able offer al fresco eating and dining. They are now a given part of our urban lifestyle. Unfortunately for the proprietors of cafes, the Stanhope government now sees these businesses as a cash cow for additional revenue. I think it is time to say that enough is enough. I would urge the government to accept my motion, withdraw the notice of the latest increases in these fees, admit that it has broken the commitment on which the increases in these fees has been based, at worst comply with the increase in the fees to 100 per cent over the base fee that applied in 2004-05 or, if they are genuinely serious about making the Canberra environment more agreeable to the locals as well as visitors, not go ahead with this increase at all.

The disallowable instrument is inaccurate. It is excessive. It is unjustified. It is 40 per cent more than the minister promised in the 2005-06 budget.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.50): I will be brief. I want to thank Mr Smyth for doing the maths. It is a bit worrying when an MLA’s job includes checking the calculations of fee rises and other charges by the government. I thank Mr Smyth very much for bringing this to our notice.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .