XN000022-1982-06-02 — Page 17

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1982

16

+THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF ADDING TO THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR, AND TO THE GROWTH RATE OF PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE, BY LOOKING FOR PROJECTS ON WHICH TO SPEND THIS WINDFALL.

+ THE ESTIMATED SIZE OF THIS WINDFALL IS, IN ANY EVENT, IN DOUBT. THE FIGURE OF $1 000 MILLION WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED WAS CALCULATED ON THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AS WERE USED IN THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE FOR THE BUDGET, AS TO THE NUMBER OF NEW VEHICLES TO BE REGISTERED, THE NUMBER OF LICENCES TO BE ISSUED AND THE CONSUMPTION OF LIGHT OILS.

+TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPOSED MEASURES ARE EFFECTIVE, AS I HOPE THEY WILL BE, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE WILL BE LOWER THAN THE $1 000 MILLION FIGURE,+ MR CHING SAID.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON JOHN GRIFFITHS, REPLYING TO POINTS RAISED BY THE HON CHARLES YEUNG AND THE HON ALEX WU, STRESSED THAT THE PUBLIC REVENUE PROTECTION ORDERS WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC REVENUE.

+THE OBJECTIVE OF THE LEGISLATION, NAMELY TO ASSIST THE CONTROL OF TRAFFIC, IS ONE THING. THE MEANS TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE REQUIRES THE RAISING OF VARIOUS TAXES AND DUTIES,+ HE SAID.

+THERE CAN SURELY BE NO DOUBT THAT HAD THESE ORDERS NOT BEEN MADE THERE WOULD INEVITABLY HAVE BEEN A LOSS TO THE PUBLIC REVENUE.+

MR GRIFFITHS SAID IT WAS BEYOND ARGUMENT THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE VEHICLES BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PROPOSALS AND THEIR ENACTMENT, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE HIGHER FIRST REGISTRATION TAX.

SIMILARLY, THEY WOULD HAVE RE-LICENSED THEIR CARS AT THE LOWER RATE, AND NO DOUBT AS MUCH PETROL AS POSSIBLE WOULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM BOND AND PUT INTO CARS IN THE SAME PERIOD BEFORE THE PRICES ROSE.

+THIS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A LOSS TO THE PUBLIC REVENUE WHICH THESE ORDERS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT, HE SAID.

MR GRIFFITHS ALSO SAID THAT THE ORDERS WERE EQUITABLE BECAUSE THEY ENSURED THAT NO MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WAS ABLE TO STEAL A MARCH OVER OTHERS.

WHEN THE PUBLIC REVENUE PROTECTION ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED IN 1927, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER (PROTECTING THE PUBLIC REVENUE) WAS NOT PERMANENT. IT IS PROVISIONAL AND TEMPORARY BUT BEFORE IT CEASES TO HAVE EFFECT THERE IS AMPLE TIME FOR FULL DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMUNITY, IN THE PRESS AND AMONGST INDIVIDUALS OF THE NEW PROPOSALS.

+THAT UNDERLYING PURPOSE REMAINS AS NECESSARY TODAY AT

IT WAS IN 1927, SO AS TO ALLOW THIS COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC TO HAVE

MR GRIFFITHS AMPLE TIME TO DEBATE AND CONSIDER THE PROPOSALS,

SAID.

15