Page 3574 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could not see what sort of amendment could be put forward that would remove the inequity without significantly impacting on the Government's ability to raise the revenues that it is projecting; in other words, so that only those who needed to be protected would be protected.
So, we were unable, in the short time given to us, to put forward those amendments; but I think they are things that need to be examined in the longer term. The Government itself may wish to take those matters on notice and look at them; but I foreshadow that the Liberal government, after February 1992, will certainly look at those two aspects if the Government does not do so in the meantime.
MR JENSEN (4.44): At the time of the comments in this house on the budget strategy brought down by the Chief Minister and Treasurer, the Rally, I seem to recall, identified some of the problems that involuntary landlords would, in fact, suffer under the proposed legislation, certainly in terms of the concepts and ideas that were put forward at the time by the Government. I note that the Government has seen fit to take up those concerns and has responded to them in a positive way.
There are a number of other landlords in the ACT who I think will also find that they are affected by this legislation. This is not necessarily because they are on the maximum tax rate, because in a lot of cases they are not. They are widows who are superannuants on fixed incomes, and their only asset is, effectively, a small home which they are using for rental because they have been able to move in with one of their sons or daughters, or sons-in-law or daughters-in-law.
Effectively, that is their only source of income, other than a very small pension - or five-eighths of nothing, as is said of pensions that were established a long time before superannuation as we know it today. Before superannuation became the sexy topic that it now is, all they got on his death was five-eighths of their husband's pension. On that basis, I think we will find that it is these superannuants who will suffer by the imposition of this tax. As I understand it, no provision is being made for this.
Like Mr Kaine, the Rally had extensive consultations, not only with the officials, who were most helpful, but also with representatives from the Australian Council on the Ageing, ACT Branch, who also expressed this sort of concern. The Government has to look very carefully at this issue. In the time allowed, we were unable to come up with a way around this problem. I think it is something that the Government has to look at because, you will recall, this Bill was brought into the Assembly only last week and we have not really had the time to undertake the necessary work that would assist in the preparation of an amendment that would pick up this sort of problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .