I wish to thank Christine Fyffe, our local State member, for presenting a speach in parliament regarding this issue.
Below is the full copy of her speach. She gives me a special mention and I hope that we may find a fairer system to fund the fantastic work carried out by the Victorian CFA.
Title FIRE SERVICES FUNDING (FEASIBILITY STUDY) BILL House ASSEMBLY Activity Second Reading
Members FYFFE
________________________________________
26 November 2009 ASSEMBLY
________________________________________
Mrs FYFFE (Evelyn) -- I am pleased to rise to make a brief contribution on the Fire Services Funding (Feasibility Study) Bill. Whenever taxation is mentioned in the context of the Brumby government, I am reminded of the lyrics to the George Harrison song, Taxman. I will spare the chamber any attempt by me to put it to a melody, but the song says:
Let me tell you how it will be,
There's 1 for you, 19 for me ...
... If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
...
'Cos I'm the Taxman.
I know government members know the words; it is their anthem.
I most definitely support the amendments to be proposed by the member for Scoresby to curtail any attempt by this government to secretly put in place an agenda to be able to change powers to investigate any tax. However, in the case of the fire services levy, this is an unquestionably necessary tax. The problem, though, lies in the degree of burden being felt by those who pay insurance, which incorporates the fire services levy, versus those who do not pay insurance but still benefit from the services of the MFB (Metropolitan Fire Brigade).
It is an issue that is of great concern to many in my electorate of Evelyn. Black Saturday resulted in 173 deaths, 6180 injuries and thousands made homeless by an unrelenting fire storm that felt as if we had been plunged into the very depths of hell. In fact I personally felt we had been plunged into the depths of hell. It was a disaster that the state of Victoria was not prepared for. I pray we will not experience a repeat of such devastation during this fire season, which has already begun.
In terms of the fire services levy, the Black Saturday bushfires revealed that 30 per cent of property owners did not have insurance -- in other words, 70 per cent of property owners are carrying the 30 per cent who perhaps cannot afford insurance or who do not want to pay for it. The fire services levy is paid as a percentage of house and business insurance premiums and funds the CFA (Country Fire Authority) and MFB.
Mr Mario Galteri, who has a business in Coldstream, has been passionately campaigning for a system that would see the fire services funded by the state government. Businesses are now being made to pay an increased rate of 68 per cent of the premium while homeowners pay 26 per cent. It is simply not fair when everyone receives the same service.
While the CFA is technically able to charge a fee to property owners for their services, as one volunteer, Don Bigham, from the Gruyere CFA said to me -- and forgive me for paraphrasing -- 'We don't want to have to present some poor bugger with a bill when he has just lost everything'.
Since every premium requires GST and stamp duty to be paid, the government is benefiting from the levy without any consideration of the strain that it is putting on business and family incomes. In the case of Mr Galteri, the fire services levy and taxes add about an extra $15 000 to his annual insurance bill. If we have season after season of severe bushfires, funding requirements for the CFA and MFB will soar, putting even more pressure on the backs of the few. As soon as the burden becomes too great, other businesses and property owners will simply stop paying their insurance premiums until the government is left with no alternative other than to meet the entire cost of the fire services. We cannot risk the CFA not being adequately funded in future bushfire seasons.
Clause 6 inserts new section 116A(1) which stipulates that the commissioner can conduct feasibility studies in relation to a new or existing tax, duty, levy or impost in the public interest. This extends the role of the commissioner beyond the administration of the taxation laws. The term 'public interest', as we all know, is a debatable term. In order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on knee-jerk feasibility studies, I think the bill could be strengthened by the inclusion of some parameters. I would hate us to reach a situation where feasibility studies are being conducted as a matter of routine.
New section 116B(2) outlines all the items the commissioner must state in the notice when requiring information for a feasibility study. This includes the purpose for which the information is required, the form in which the information is to be provided and the person to whom the information is to be provided. I note that there is no mention of the responsibility of the commissioner to include any information in the notice about the right of the individual to refuse to provide this information.
I am very conscious that there are many speakers wanting to speak on this bill.
I would just like to reiterate that I wholeheartedly support the amendments by the shadow Treasurer, the member for Scoresby. We cannot allow this bill to go through without those changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment