HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-08-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Budget Measures Bill 2014

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2014.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:18): My submission was abruptly terminated last time. It was a shame, because I was beginning to get some momentum, but I will aim to close with the same amount of gusto. In summary, this is an appalling bill, and I will certainly be opposing the Budget Measures Bill in relation to the car park tax 2014.

I honestly call on the government to retract it and stop this atrocious levy on parking spaces within the Adelaide CBD. There are many reasons: first, to reiterate, this is a tax that is not only going to hurt small business but it is going to hurt students, it is going to hurt retailers, it is going to hurt parents, and it is going to hurt anyone who goes into the city and parks their car. The government does not have a mandate to pass this bill. It only got 47 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Let's not forget that.

They think they can come in here when they claim to be trying to grow the economy and what are they going to do? They are going to punish people for coming into the city. That is hardly the way to grow the economy and to instil more confidence in consumers and retailers who are already struggling in the economic state that this government has cast its eye over. This is a tax on middle class South Australia—as I said, the mums and dads, and the students.

Mr Knoll: The forgotten people.

Mr TARZIA: The forgotten people—exactly right, member for Schubert, the forgotten people. The aspirational middle class, because this government thinks—

Mr Knoll: Working families.

Mr TARZIA: Working families—exactly right. This government thinks that people who drive cars are rich. You know what, they are not rich, and I will tell you why: because there are a lot of people who cannot use public transport services because they are not good enough, which the member for Lee oversees. This car park tax is going to hit these people who go to university in the city. They have no other way of getting there, so what do they have to do? They have to use their cars. I ask the government to listen to retailers, to the students and to the parents who are going to be hit by this tax. It is a disgraceful tax.

We have heard not only from opposition members but also industry experts in relation to this bill both here and interstate on the effect that it has had interstate. There is nothing more punitive than to put another tax in the city. How do you expect more money to flow into the city when you are punishing people for coming here? When the government was looking at introducing the bill, Nathan Paine, the executive director of the Property Council of Australia, said in May 2013 that this tax is designed to reduce the number of people driving into the city.

To wind up, I cannot support this bill. This is a bill that attacks middle class South Australia and there is no way that I am going to stand here on behalf of the residents of Hartley and support such a bill when I want this state to grow and flourish. I want to support retailers, students and middle class South Australia, and that is why I cannot support this bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (16:21): Often it is the tragedy of parliament that the old convince the young that they know better. I look at the future of the Liberal Party and, other than having a quiet laugh to myself, I think to myself, 'One day they will be in positions perhaps here on Treasury benches and they are following blindly off a cliff a precedent being set by a group of shadow ministers who have lost four elections in a row.' From those four elections, they have learned nothing. They make their speeches bravely about how they will defend middle class South Australia, whatever that is, by opposing the executive's right to impose levies and taxes.

I say this to members opposite who are now saying that the executive has no right to assert its own budget: if you wish to bring in that type of political system into this state, you are breaking years and years of precedent, and we will pay you back in spades, because you will not always be on opposition benches. One day you will be in government—members directly opposite probably never will be, but members at the back may be. However, if the young want to blindly follow the old and follow them off the cliff—because there is a definition of stupidity. If you do one thing and it does not work, and you continue to do it over and over and over again, and you do not change your actions, well, that is just stupid. It has been said of the Liberal Party that not only are they stupid but they are stupid often.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Militant stupidity.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Militant stupidity. It seems to me that there are younger members of the Liberal Party who want to govern, who want to lead and who want to implement their vision of liberalism in this state, but they are being held back by the tactics and the same political strategies of the old men who run the Liberal Party who have failed them. Remember that they won the largest landslide election in South Australian and indeed Australian history in 1993 and were out of government in 2002, after being in a minority government four years later. These are the same men and the same strategies that they are following now. I say to the young men at the back and the new members who want to one day be in government that you are setting a dangerous precedent by following the old through the same tactics that have failed you in the past, but by all means, following the principles of The Art of War, if your enemy is acting stupidly, do not get in their way.

Before closing the debate, I want to say a few things about Treasury and the public servants who have formulated not only the Budget Measures Bill but also the Appropriation Bill. I did not have a chance to thank them in my budget speech to the parliament, but can I just say that all members of the house would be truly proud if they could see the work that they do behind the scenes: the hours away from their families, the time that they spend making sure that they deliver the very best budget they can within the frameworks that their political masters set. These are people who do not think politically and do not act politically but act in the very best interests of the people of South Australia. They are truly a credit to the Public Service and I hope all members realise the hard work they do. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Consideration of clauses 1 and 2 postponed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clauses 4 to 23.

Mr MARSHALL: I will be moving to delete these clauses.

The CHAIR: So your intention is actually to vote against clause 4?

Mr MARSHALL: Correct.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to that?

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Chair. I think that I have already outlined the opposition's case regarding the imposition of the Transport Development Levy in previous contributions to this house. I would just be happy if we could put the amendment.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I might start by asking some questions of the mover of the amendment and then make some comment. First of all, can I say by way of background that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me questions in the house on this subject and I chose not to answer the question at the time but to refer it to the Treasurer. I presume that because the leader has asked a question of me in the house he has invited me to reflect on decisions that I may have made when I was a member of the opposition, and I presume he wants me to go into why I supported the opposition's position on the car parking tax and why I might now have a different view. I am going to take this opportunity to explain to the leader, since he asked me the question, why that is.

I start by making it clear, as he would know, that from the very outset I had some concerns about whether this was a wise position to take, that is, opposing the car parking tax. He would know that I shared that view with him and others in the shadow cabinet. My argument was—as he would know, since he is asking a question about it—that I thought other taxes were causing more pain to the broader community, particularly payroll tax and land tax, and that before we decided to oppose a car parking tax we should give some consideration to what our policy might be on payroll and land tax and even motor vehicle registration fees and certain other fees that were hurting the average punter.

My argument was that the people using car parks in the CBD are not the broad community. Certainly for people living in regional communities—if you are on Kangaroo Island or Eyre Peninsula or Yorke Peninsula or in the Mid North—you would not be using that central car parking facility all that often. Similarly, if you are a single mum living in Mitchell Park, or a low-income family living in Elizabeth, you might not be coming into town to park at the DJ's car park (or wherever it might be) but what does worry you are your electricity bill and your water bill—some of the other taxes and charges which you have to pay that everyone pays.

My argument was that we should look at that first rather than oppose this. Perhaps we should let this go through and take the revenue from the car parking tax and use it to deliver land tax reform or to get the punters' land taxes or other taxes down so that they were better off, because I think they were the people who were really hurting. However, I lost that argument and subsequently showed the discipline and supported the opposition on the car parking tax.

Since the leader has asked me that question I wanted to get it on the record that I had some concerns about this from the outset. I am free to share those concerns again, and I make the point that I would think that, of all the taxes and charges that the people of South Australia have to pay, this would not be the first I would pick to reduce, cut or amend. I think the average punter out there is suffering quite a bit, as I have mentioned, and this one is quite targeted.

Others have spoken as to why Adelaide is well served with car parks and well served with these arrangements; the public transport system is there to carry people. Why? For a host of reasons. The community can probably take this car parking levy ahead of an increase in, say, payroll tax or land tax or some other device that would really hurt the average punter, because I am thinking about the people who cannot afford to come in and park in the city because they cannot even afford to own a car in some cases, and let us think about them.

Since I was asked the question I am responding to it, and I am indicating in regard to this amendment that I think it is unwise to attempt to interfere with this levy. I will add that I think that the fact that these car parks are owned by some wealthy individuals or entities who ran a political campaign, in effect, prior to the election might have had some influence on decisions people have taken.

Mr Marshall: I beg your pardon?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I know that they played a consideration in decisions that were taken.

Mr Marshall: In what way?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, since the leader is asking me, I will respond. As he well knows, there were discussions in various forums within the Liberal Party about the very fact that the people who own those car parks were prepared to run an advertising campaign against the car parking tax.

Mr Marshall: Are you suggesting that I was prepared to change my position because of a political donation to the party?

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: No, I would not go so far as to suggest that—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —but what I will say to the leader—and he knows it to be a fact—is that he himself raised the fact that these wealthy car park owners were prepared to run an advertising campaign against the tax and that that might be a good thing. He did raise that. He knows he did raise that.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT