Page 4162 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the ACT. It is a very important issue for all in the community and, despite the denials of the Treasurer, he has not yet delivered one document which disavows to me, or indeed disavows to the Canberra Liberals, the work that we have done that says the only way that you can pay for these tax increases is to triple rates.
We have asked on a number of occasions for information. At first we were told to go to Quinlan. We went to Quinlan, and it is quite clear from the Quinlan documents that rates will triple. We then asked whether there was other modelling, and although the minister was shy to start with, eventually he said, “Yes, there is other modelling.” We have asked consistently for that modelling. Indeed, in a question on 19 September, again I asked whether he would table that modelling. He said no, so I moved under standing order 213A that these documents be tabled. 213A sets out a process, Madam Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware, that details how documents that are in dispute can be accessed by the Assembly.
With respect to the motion that was amended and passed, it was an amendment from Mr Rattenbury. Mr Rattenbury moved it to make it more clear. He said:
(1) notes the information provided in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Budget papers concerning the taxation reforms; and
(2) in accordance with standing order 213A, calls on the Government to table, by 31 October 2013, any other analysis of the impacts that the taxation reforms implemented to date are expected to have …
The standing order calls on the government to table the documents. It does not call on the government to table their analysis of the documents, and that is exactly what the Treasurer did. In the document that he tabled, called “The government’s response to Mr Smyth’s motion regarding analysis undertaken on taxation reforms”, on page 2 it says:
This paper provides an overview of relevant modelling and analysis undertaken as part of the ACT taxation review and for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 budgets.
We did not ask for an overview. We asked for the documents. We actually did not ask for a statement in the Assembly. Under the standing order, the documents are sent to the Clerk and they are held by the Clerk. So first and foremost, what we asked for was not delivered. If you look at standing order 277, Madam Speaker, standing order 277(h) says:
A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Assembly or of a committee.
And standing order 213A, as passed, is a lawful order. Standing order 213A says:
The Assembly may order documents to be tabled in the Assembly.
We did that. No documents were tabled. So in that regard the minister is in contempt of the standing order. Then, even more clearly, if you go to standing order 277, which deals with “Contempt—matters constituting contempt”, 277(m) says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video