Page 2243 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
… Mr Quinlan’s centrepiece plan to abolish stamp duty and replace it with “a broad-based property tax” had been Greens policy for some time …
It is interesting that if you get on the website and look at the Greens policy, which has been there for some time, it is very hard to find the words “broad-based property tax”. There is tax on everything else, but there is not a broad-based property tax. There is an increase in rates of income tax; a new consumption tax; capital gains tax; fringe benefits tax; elimination of salary sacrificing; introduction of estate duties—there is a winner; introduction of a gift tax; increased taxation of superannuation; tax on family trusts; increased company tax rates, to 33 per cent; tax of bank dividends; and introduction of a carbon levy. The list is long and extensive, but I do not see the words “broad-based property tax” in the Greens document. But then again, when you are a coalition ally, when you are in the Greens-Labor alliance, you just agree with anything that fronts up.
Of course we have the reform budget of 2006, which Mr Stanhope at the time said would set us up for the future and alleviate any financial pressures into the future. That was wrong. That failed.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the Quinlan tax review is a useful document, containing some useful information while not necessarily having reached the most effective conclusions. Sadly, the motion from Ms Porter does not do any justice to the report from Mr Quinlan. It would be more valuable for us to move to a more effective debate on taxation policy in the light of the federal budget. (Time expired.)
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (3.28): The Greens are very pleased that the taxation review is now public and that there will be the chance for the community to discuss the reforms. Let me say at the outset that, with the obvious exception, the Greens are generally supportive of the recommendations and agree that there are significant structural reforms that should take place and from which the territory will take a significant benefit.
Having only had the last two days to look at the report—we have, of course, been sitting and there has been the commonwealth budget—I have not had the opportunity to carefully consider all of the proposals and so can only speak in general terms about the ideas and initiatives canvassed in the report. The most significant issue canvassed in the review is the removal of stamp duty and its replacement with a broad-based land tax. For some time now I have spoken in this place about the need to move away from transaction taxes and towards a more stable revenue base. I note that Mr Smyth has been reading from the Australian Greens tax policy.
The ACT Greens participated in the Quinlan review. We did go and meet with Ted Quinlan and others who were part of that review team, and followed that up with a letter. I note that the Canberra Liberals did not participate in any of the discussions around the reforming of our tax system. The ACT Greens participated in the consultation process; we expressed our view that conveyance duty was not an efficient tax and we supported broadening of the land tax base. The case for this change is unequivocal and well supported by an enormous quantity of economic evidence, not least of which is the Henry tax review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video