Page 1274 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS FITZHARRIS: I will take the question on notice. It requires clinical input for me to appropriately answer that question.
MR COE: Minister, in the event that you need clinical advice, why is it that you dismissed the claim on the basis that it was not substantiated?
MS FITZHARRIS: I have not dismissed the complaint. I indicated on a number of occasions that the complaint was taken seriously; that all complaints are taken seriously.
MRS DUNNE: Minister, how many consumer feedback submissions have you dismissed on the basis that they were not substantiated?
MS FITZHARRIS: None.
Ginninderry—development
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Treasurer and relates to his proposed arrangement for the New South Wales part of the cross-border Ginninderry development. According to yesterday’s Canberra Times, New South Wales residents will be paying ACT-level rates for ACT government-provided services. Will residents pay ACT-level stamp duty, or the higher New South Wales stamp duty?
MR BARR: In response to Ms Le Couteur, firstly, any cross-border development is at least a decade away, into the 2030s. The ACT’s preferred position remains that the border shift. I believe that the Canberra Times reported that that would not happen. I do not think that there is any basis to make the statement that it would not happen. It remains an ongoing discussion between ACT, New South Wales and Australian governments and the Yass Valley Council. So on one level the question is hypothetical. Our preference remains that the border move. It is not an urgent issue. It will not be one that will need to be considered for at least a decade.
If the border is not moved, then some form of memorandum of understanding between the ACT, New South Wales and Yass will need to be struck. Those issues would need to be considered at that time. That would of course depend on the relative settings of stamp duty in New South Wales at that time compared to the ACT; the relative settings of local government charges in New South Wales in that council area and in the ACT; and on the types of services that were being provided. A statement of principle would be that ACT residents would not be subsidising the services of those in that part of the development were it to be in New South Wales. But I reiterate that our preference remains that the border move. That reduces the complications considerably.
MS LE COUTEUR: Given that the border has in fact not moved, are we having a situation where residents will get ACT services but vote in New South Wales? Is this effectively a proposal for taxation without representation?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video