Page 1893 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (11.19): Mr Speaker, I will speak briefly. There are one or two things that I think need to be observed. I notice that this Bill seems to have fairly universal support within the Assembly. It acknowledges the fact that pensioners should be entitled either to be able to have remission of their rates or to be able to defer them. It simplifies the process for them by saying that they need apply only once. That places the onus on them, of course, that if they cease to be eligible for any reason they have to advise the Commissioner for ACT Revenue so that the adjustment can be made.
One thing that the Bill does not say clearly, and nobody has commented on it, is the amount of the rebate. All it does is give a formula. The effect of that formula is that people are entitled to pay only half the rates. That essentially is what the Bill says. So, any entitled person gets a 50 per cent rebate if they live in the property for a full year. I think that is a very substantial remission and something of great value to pensioners who are often on fixed incomes. The increasing rates, along with other costs of living, are sometimes a heavy burden for them; but, of course, in the end, if they cannot even sustain that level of rates, there is provision for a deferment of the rates due.
I want to take up one point that Mrs Grassby made, Mr Speaker. The people from the ACT Council on the Ageing apparently made a point to her. I am rather surprised that they would even make it because the prescription is that if it is the person's principal place of residence they are entitled to the remission or the rebate. You can be in hospital or a nursing home for a substantial part of the year, but if the property remains your principal place of residence there is no question about the eligibility. In fact, a person can spend a considerable amount of the time in a weekender down the coast, but if their house is still their principal place of residence they are entitled to the rebate. So, I do not understand the concern that Mrs Grassby has expressed or why anybody would have any concern about that matter.
On the point raised by Mr Moore, this is a Bill that relates to rates and land rent relief. It has nothing to do with leasehold tenure or anything else. This is not the relevant time to be making a distinction between freehold and leasehold. That is dealt with in other places, in other Bills, where it is proper to make that distinction. I think that it is totally irrelevant in terms of whether a person is entitled to a rebate or a remission of their rates.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this is yet another step in this Government's program to make life easier for our senior citizens. It is not the only thing that we have done. It is one of a series of things that we are doing. I am pleased that it has the general support of the Assembly and I am sure that members will reflect that support when they vote on the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .