Page 3394 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sewerage bills, $38 in gas bills, $16 in electricity bills and $36 in telecommunications bills.
One of the things that we have not looked at so far in this debate is the cost on businesses. I hark back to the point I made a few minutes ago: sometimes, if you reduce costs for businesses, you can generate a lot more business as a result. Often you can generate a huge amount of business for very small amounts of money. That boosts productivity in the territory and it brings in money from other sources that you simply do not have otherwise. So it is very relevant to know just how much business would save from this.
As with residential households, the utilities tax increases costs for businesses—the costs of water, sewerage, gas, electricity and telecommunications services. But because of their larger size and larger utility use compared with residential households, the increase in the costs of utilities to businesses would be more than the $131 increase to households in many instances. That creates an impost on almost all of the core inputs of ACT businesses.
Businesses use substantially more water than households; hence they should expect to pay substantially more than the $23 paid by households due to the tax. Businesses such as car washes, hairdressers, swimming pool businesses and various industrial businesses often use substantial amounts of water compared with residential households. They have to pay for this, and the utilities tax on that exponentially increases the costs to those businesses.
Many businesses—businesses with a lot of people—produce more sewage than households and hence should expect to pay substantially more than the $18 paid by households due to the tax. Businesses that use gas in many cases substantially use a lot more than households; they should expect to pay substantially more than the $38 paid by households due to the tax. Businesses such as restaurants will be the most severely affected by the tax because they use substantial amounts of gas compared to residential households.
Let me digress. Yesterday Mr Hargreaves came in here and at least made one little statement which assisted a bit for those businesses—many of the restaurants that have outside dining areas. There was another indication, however, that there was—
Mr Mulcahy: It was a stuff-up.
MR STEFANIAK: It was an absolute stuff-up, Mr Mulcahy. What was it—$32.10 in 2005 for the cost of an outdoor area in the premium area, which was meant to go up by 100 per cent, which would make it $64.20, except that it went up to $79?
Mr Mulcahy: They can’t add up.
MR STEFANIAK: They can’t add up. That minister cannot add up. In October he maintained until he was blue in the face that that was all right. He came in here sheepishly yesterday to say, “Well, oops; we got it wrong.” I think I heard him say—
Mrs Dunne: At least he corrected the record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .