Insofar as Kate Carnell was preaching to the converted at a lunch of property owners yesterday she could have taken as her text, from John Donne’s Devotions: “”No man is an island”. Donne’s language, written four centuries ago, would need to be cleansed of sexism, but the sentiment was right. Ms Carnell argued that the ACT was surrounded by NSW and therefore could not be, in Donne’s words, “”entire of itself”. In short, we must compete with NSW by offering lower taxes so businesses would flock here. Rosemary Follett, at the same lunch, also took up the theme. She had lowered the tax on low-alcohol beer in line with NSW _ in case people flocked to Queanbeyan to get their grog as they did in the early days of Canberra when the Federal territory was ruled by the teetotal King O’Malley. She had also cut payroll tax in line with NSW down to 7 per cent. Mrs Carnell promised to cut it further _ down to 6 per cent, to lure more businesses here. She repeated various other promises of subsidies and lower taxes to make the ACT more attractive and competitive with other states. Evidence of the success of such a policy was manifest.
Here was a Building Owners’ and Managers’ Association lunch in a room in the Canberra Club (which incidentally just a few years ago would have barred yesterday’s two honoured guests on the ground they were not men) filled to capacity with business people _ no doubt attracted by the subsidy provided by Jones Lang Wootton, the sponsor. As the lunch progressed it transpired that there were two ACTs _ utterly different territories. One was stable, growing well, doing innovative things, consulting with business and generating business. And it had the statistics to go with it: debt reduced from $1000 a head to $180 and a Standard and Poors triple A credit rating.
The other ACT was a more miserable place: long waiting times to get anything done, red tape, imposts on land and high unemployment. And it had the statistics to go with it: debt at $74 million over the next three years; taxes and charges to go up 25 per cent to pay for the profligacy of government and $44 million overspent in health. But after February 18, both ACTs, we were told, would be bright innovative places, attracting business and tourism from elsewhere by auctioning off the revenue base to the lowest tenderer and subsiding all who want to come in for a cheaper lunch in the hope that when they arrive in the ACT island they will pay for their lunch in another way. We have now had some weeks of spending promises and promises of revenue cuts which have to be paid for somehow. Voters puzzling which of these two leaders should be rejected on February 18 should (to complete Donne’s lines) “”therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”.