Page 1900 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: No, that is not what I proposed.
MR DUBY: Let me finish. To be eligible one has to pass an income based means test - in other words, be eligible under the Commonwealth Social Security Act. In terms of eligibility from the ACT's point of view, we have eliminated those persons on high income levels. In other words, they are already eligible under the Commonwealth Act. Mr Berry then wishes to go a step further and look at the value of what is probably the principal asset of most of these people, namely, their family home.
I understand exactly what Mr Berry is suggesting. He is suggesting, in effect, that there should be a cap put on values or something like that, a cap on the maximum rebate, and it has to be considered. He is saying that perhaps there should be more money, a larger percentage of rebate, going to those who presumably have low value properties. To pick a figure, say, 70 per cent rebate should go to those with a property value of less than a certain figure, and people who have high value properties might receive a 30 per cent rebate. I assume that that is the sort of thing Mr Berry is referring to. He certainly has not shaken his head or done anything like that; so I guess that is the type of proposal he is coming to.
What he is forgetting is that a vast number of people who are in receipt of a pensioner rebate are aged persons, and most of those aged persons live in the inner city area, in the old suburbs, which in many cases have high values. For us to be applying a disproportionate level of rebate to them compared with someone who is living in a low valued property would be iniquitous, in my view. That is my understanding of what Mr Berry said.
Perhaps I am mistaken, Mr Berry; but it appears to me that your argument is that those at the bottom end of town are getting exactly the same, a 50 per cent rebate, as those who are living at the top end of town, and therefore the people who have a higher valued property are getting a larger rebate. That seems to be the argument you are addressing. To me it is not a very sensible argument. To introduce something along those lines would disadvantage elderly people within our inner suburbs, our older suburbs, the value of whose properties is quite high compared with those who are living in newer suburbs in Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong. Whilst I agree with Mr Berry that the whole issue of rebates and concessions and things like that needs to be addressed, his proposal, I think, would not make sense.
MR BERRY (11.46) Mr Duby has got it slightly out of context, I think. I note that he does agree that the Government has not considered the overall question of a package of concessions which might apply. I think that is a very important point. It is the point that was raised by the Council of Social Service in their letter to which I referred, and that really ought to have been the starting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .