Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1338 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

This approach is not an easy decision for any government, but it is one that desperately needs to be made. Mr Speaker, there is no particular revenue benefit to the Government in this year's budget, because it is a grandfather situation. All the concessions that we currently give will continue to happen. All we will do is stem increases in concessions in the future. There is not a huge benefit. I think at the end of the first year it is probably almost of no benefit to the Government in the first year with the setting up of the new scheme. But we believe that when you look at the long term for the ACT we must address this problem. Every other State has addressed it. We in this Assembly must have the guts to address it as well, but at the same time have a proper and well-organised deferral system, which we have in place, to ensure that no pensioner is placed in a position where they simply cannot afford to pay their rates.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clauses 1 to 10, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 11

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (6.12): Mr Speaker, the Opposition will be opposing this clause. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Opposition's view is that this change to the concession arrangements to cap the concessions for new pensioners at $250 is not justified. It is not justified in revenue terms and it will cause hardship to individual pensioners.

Mrs Carnell, in her concluding remarks at the in-principle stage, referred to the fact that pensioners will still have access to the deferral scheme. Indeed, that is the case. In relation to this matter and in relation to people who are adversely affected by the assets test on pensions and other similar arrangements, successive governments have sought to persuade pensioners to avail themselves of deferral schemes which have the effect of allowing them to get the benefits of a concession up front with a charge against their assets which will be taken, down the track, when their property is sold, whether because they have moved out or because they have died and it is settled as part of their estate.

The history of attempts to persuade older people to avail themselves of these kinds of deferral arrangements is a very lack-lustre one. The fact is that older people do not like deferral schemes. They do not like the idea of putting a charge against their house. They do not like the idea that their next of kin are going to have to settle up and make some large payment to the Taxation Office or the Revenue Office when they die. As a result, they simply do not avail themselves of these kinds of schemes and, instead, endure unnecessary financial hardship.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .