27
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993
FS:
то
IT IS POSSIBLE. I MEAN TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, FORECAST PROPERTY SALES, PROPERTY PRICES, PROPERTY REVENUE, IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT AND PERHAPS WE TEND TO BE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE ON I THINK GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE IN THEIR FORECASTS. SO THERE IS UP-SIDE AS WELL AS DOWN-SIDE IN THOSE FIGURES, YES.
THAT BECAUSE
QUESTION:
GOOD MORNING.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK: THERE WILL BE ABOLITION OF TAX OR COSMETIC DUTY. NOW THAT DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT THE PUBLIC AS SUCH. LAST YEAR, THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY LIFTED THE TAX ON SOFT DRINKS AND CINEMA TICKETS BUT THE PUBLIC DID NOT STAND TO GAIN AT ALL BECAUSE LAST YEAR THERE WAS NO PRICE REDUCTION ON SOFT DRINKS SO ALL THE BENEFITS WENT TO THE TRADERS. NOW THIS YEAR, YOU ARE GOING TO LIFT COSMETIC DUTY AND THAT MEANS THERE IS A REMOVAL OF 30 PER CENT DUTY, BUT THEN THE PUBLIC IS ONLY GOING TO ENJOY A TEN PER CENT PRICE REDUCTION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE OTHER TWENTY PERCENT WILL GO TO THE TRADERS, SO WE DON'T REALLY BENEFIT AS SUCH. IN THAT CASE, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US MORE TAX CONCESSIONS INSTEAD?
FS:
YES,
I WAS AMAZED ACTUALLY LAST YEAR AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT NO ONE DRANK SOFT DRINKS OR WENT TO THE CINEMA. YOU CAN DO TWO THINGS WHEN YOU'RE REMOVING A TAX. YOU CAN ASK FOR A COMMITMENT то ACTUALLY REDUCE THE CHARGE, WHICH WE GOT FROM THE COSMETICS INDUSTRY, OR AT THE VERY LEAST YOU CAN ENSURE THAT INCREASES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COMING UP BECAUSE OF INFLATION ARE NOT AND I THINK THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO DOES ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS DIRECTLY. AND DON'T BE MISLED BY THE TITLE 'COSMETICS', IT INCLUDES A WHOLE RANGE OF CREAMS AND SO ON WHICH EVERYONE USES, IT IS NOT JUST EXPENSIVE WOMEN'S PERFUMES.
IMPLEMENTED.
SECONDLY, I DID HAVE IN MIND OUR TOURIST INDUSTRY. ONE OF OUR ATTRACTIONS FOR, FOR INSTANCE THE JAPANESE, IS THAT THEY COME HERE TO SHOP FOR THINGS PRECISELY LIKE COSMETICS AND WE WERE IN DANGER OF LOSING OUR ATTRACTION IN THE COSMETICS FIELD THROUGH THAT TAX. IF THE SALES INCREASE THEN OUR ECONOMY WILL BENEFIT, SO I ALSO HAD THAT IN MIND.
QUESTION:
NOW WE TALK ABOUT FLEXIBILITY.
1
OK I WANT TO GO BACK 96-97. YOU MENTIONED POSSIBLY. SO IS IT AN
ΤΟ THE RESERVES OF $78 BILLION BY THE YEAR THAT IS AN ESTIMATE AND THERE IS MARGIN ERROR, OPTIMISTIC ESTIMATE, THAT WE HAVE $78 BILLION? WHAT, SAY, IF THERE IS A DOWN-SIDE ELEMENT? IN OTHER WORDS THE RESERVES COULD BE MUCH SMALLER, MAYBE WE COULD NOT EVEN REACH THE $25 BILLION MARK?
—
-
·
FS:
BUT OF COURSE THERE ARE BOTH UP-SIDES AND DOWN-SIDES, THAT IS THE NATURE OF FORECASTS. THE PURPOSE OF HAVING RESERVES WHICH ARE AN ADEQUATE CUSHION TO USE WORDING WHICH I AM RATHER FOND OF IS PRECISELY TO DEAL WITH ANY DOWN-SIDE. THERE IS NO MAGIC ABOUT HAVING 78 BILLION, THE PURPOSE IS TO HAVE RESERVES WHICH ARE ENOUGH TO HELP US DEAL WITH, LET'S SAY, LOWER GROWTH THAN WE HAD FORECAST. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE 'STOP-GO' POLICIES ON OUR CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. IF THERE WAS A DOWNTURN, WE WOULD BE ABLE ΤΟ SOFTEN THE EFFECT OF THAT BY DRAWING SOMEWHAT ON OUR RESERVES, THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR, THEY ARE NOT THERE JUST TO BE STORED UP AND ENDLESSLY INCREASED.
/QUESTION