Page 3104 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
know that the central issue here is the disallowance of this instrument rather than getting back into the fundamentals of this whole revenue measure, but at the very least I think that this measure that Mr Smyth has brought forward is appropriate. The government ought to reconsider what it has done and modify its charging regime, if not throw it out, but at the very least stick to the commitment they made and not inflate it to the level that has occurred. Most importantly, it would provide some meaningful relief from the raft of local government charges that local businesses have been subjected to.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11.02): Obviously the government is not going to agree to this motion. These fees are imposed for the use of public space by private businesses that obtain a benefit of free land in which to expand their operations.
Dr Foskey: You’ve got it wrong, John.
MR HARGREAVES: No, I have not got it wrong, Dr Foskey, through you, Mr Speaker. I will respond to that interjection this once, Mr Speaker. The people who operate the cafe business in this town pay lease fees, rental, for the premises in which they operate.
Mr Mulcahy: Why don’t you admit you made a mistake?
MR HARGREAVES: What Mr Smyth and Mr Mulcahy over here—Mr Mulcahy is the most generous of shadow treasurers of all time. He is going to cut so many taxes in this town—except the fire levy; he is not going to cut that one. He is saying, “No, we will give these folks free use of public land from which they can operate a business.” That was what Mr Smyth said and that was what Mr Mulcahy said. He said, “Do away with it altogether.” They both said, “Do away with it altogether.” Dr Foskey would have us do that as well. That is what she would have us do as well.
All I hear from these guys opposite is “We’ve got to have a vibrant cafe strip just like Melbourne.” I invite Mr Pratt to come down to the electorate he purports to represent, not having lived in it, and see the explosion of the cafe strip along Anketell Street. I invite him to come up to O’Connor and have a look—and to see the cafe strip alive and well in Kingston, Manuka and Dickson. Mr Speaker, this is a joke.
Mr Smyth wants to disallow the fees because of their quantum, or, more specifically, because of the quantum of the increases—and snicking in there is, “You can abolish the whole lot anyway.” The actual figure this year, as he has acknowledged himself, was 33 per cent; the previous year it was 32; in 2005 and 2006 it was 36. That is because he has not included the CPI component. In 2005-06, it was about three per cent.
Notwithstanding the size of the increases, the popularity of the scheme is demonstrated by the fact that there were over 200 cafe licences issued for the use of urban open space in the ACT—200 of them. No-one has handed their licence back because of the increase—not one. Mr Mulcahy talks glibly about consultation. The first time I heard of an issue was when Mr Smyth put his disallowance motion on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .