Page 3224 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think that the ACT would do well to look at that as an option. It solves a couple of problems. It solves the problem of the relativity between units and standalone houses, because both of these have a very clear market value that includes the capital part. Also, in terms of increasing the fairness in our taxation system, there is a better correlation between household income and wealth and the total value of their real estate, including the value of the house as well as the value of the land, rather than just the value of the land.
We all know the problem of the worst house on the street that is often owned by someone who has been there for a long time. They have become an age pensioner. They are no longer in a position to keep up the level of maintenance that they once did. But they have lived in that house for 20 or 30 years and it would possibly break their heart to have to move. I think these are the sorts of issues that we should be looking at.
There are other issues. How on earth can our health system be funded sustainably when it takes up 31 per cent of the ACT’s budget and federal funding is not growing as fast as costs? I point out again that quite recently this has been an area where the opposition would appear to be advocating for more, not less, expenditure. What can the government spend less on to make room for the very expensive but important areas like health, schools and public housing?
What is going to be the impact of changing the GST rules? I understand that the GST rules are likely to be changed or have been changed in a way which will be better for WA in particular, it having had significant political issues with the proportion of GST it gets. If it is good for WA, it probably is not going to be good for the ACT. Federal government spending is also not looking like being good for the ACT. There is a move to relocate parts of federal government expenditure to anywhere other than Canberra.
But Mr Coe has the luxury of not talking about these real issues that whoever puts together the ACT budget has got to look at. He has the luxury of just rolling out promises to freeze taxes without addressing the issue of what that means for health, for schools, for public housing, for public transport. He has the luxury of bringing demands on government expenditure into this chamber through private members’ business and petitions every sitting week without having to worry about what it actually costs.
Just because Mr Coe and the rest of the Liberal Party have the luxury of not dealing with the real work of balancing taxation services does not mean that Mr Coe and the Liberal Party as a whole should not do it. Sooner or later the Liberal Party will be the government in the ACT. Thus, at some point the promises that are being made will actually need to be delivered. So far the promises have largely been on the tax side. He has been talking about freezing rates and phasing out payroll tax.
This is actually fairly concerning for people like me who think that the ACT government is not providing too much in the way of services to the ACT public. I am sure of some things I would like to see cut. The Greens have banged on forever about whether we really need to spend a couple of hundred million every year on new
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video