Page 5318 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the tax review. I am not sure whether the Chief Minister or the Treasurer even got the tax review. I am not sure what will occur.
I am willing to bet that what we will not see is the tax burden relieved off the ordinary Canberran by this Treasurer, and certainly not by this Chief Minister, because she was Treasurer and she failed. Every year the take went up. Every year we looked for a new option—a utilities tax or a change of use charge. We have got Mr Corbell talking about density: “Let’s have greater density along the transport corridors.” We have got the Greens who constantly talk about density but then back a tax on density. How illogical is that? “We want this. How are we going to make this happen? Well, we’re going to tax it. We’ll tax everybody that might move into this higher density area. We will tax you more.”
We have seen what is happening with fees and charges and land taxes in the quarterly statement. We have seen the effect. The problem is that it is illogical. It is not thought out. It is not good policy. It is not consistent policy when you have got this internal contradiction in the budget, when you have got the minister for planning saying, “We need greater density,” and you have got the Treasurer and the Chief Minister saying, “Well, let’s tax that density.” If you want to achieve the outcome, think your policies through in a coherent manner. Do not do something with one hand while you are retarding it with the other hand.
I am surprised Mr Barr has backed this tax—the lease variation charge. He has told committees in the past that every tax has a drag—every tax has an effect. But we hear from the Chief Minister that apparently there is no effect. The lease variation charge is not going to increase rents, it is not going to increase prices—it is not going to increase anything, apparently, except the take for the government. It is a magic tax. You should triple it or quadruple it. If it does not have any effect, just keep doing it. Nobody is going to be offended by this tax.
Of course, that is not what the experts say. That is not what members of the property industry say. Everybody knows this tax has an effect, and the effect will be to price people out of greater density areas—that is the effect—or slow down the densification of inner Canberra, Civic, the town centres and the transport routes. You will defeat the purpose of all of the planning through the application of this tax. Who pays for it in the end? It is those who cannot afford to live in these units and those who cannot afford to live in the greenfield sites in the outer suburbs—in fact, those who cannot afford to live under this Labor government.
You can go back to the UDIA. The Urban Development Institute of Australia 10 years ago had Canberra rated as a very affordable city in which to live. Over the years they published a little chart. It went from green through the yellows, the oranges and all the way up to red—red being bad. Where is the ACT now? We are in the red zone. What did they say contributes to that? They said two things: your fees and charges and your planning and land release policies.
Unlike any other jurisdiction in the country, we control the land here; it is a territory resource. But, of course, the government have constrained so badly the release of land over the course of the decade—yes, more land is coming on the supply market now—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video