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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1527 ..

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (4.47): Mr Speaker, there are only a couple of things I want to say. I am fascinated by the suggestion by Mrs Carnell that spending money on alleviating tax burdens on disadvantaged people in the community is a waste of money that she could find much better uses for. I listened very carefully to the briefing the other day. Unfortunately, Mrs Carnell did not show the same listening ability. At the time, and again today, I put up some fairly cogent arguments, in my view, as to why the administrative costs that she is claiming for this scheme are unrealistic.

Mrs Carnell said in her remarks that it was a very complicated, confusing and vexed matter to identify the people who are included in my amendments under the category of disadvantaged persons. Mr Speaker, the definition I have included is a standard definition which is used all over the Commonwealth. It is fantastically easy to administer, because the Commonwealth identifies all the people in that category for you, and all you have to do is give the people identified the concession. It is not a complicated matter at all. A disadvantaged person is a person in relation to whom a declaration by the Secretary to the Department of Social Security of the Commonwealth, that he or she is a disadvantaged person, is in force under Part I of the Health Insurance Act 1973; that is, they have a health care card. Mr Speaker, all you have to do is say that you have your health care card, and you are in. I do not think that is terribly complicated. I am sure that, if Mrs Carnell believes that it is, it is because she has not listened when it has been explained to her how easy it is to identify disadvantaged persons under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr Speaker, it is simply a matter of principle, a matter of judgment, whether it is a fair thing to allow all disadvantaged people in the ACT to have the advantage of a concession or to restrict it to pensioners; whether it is a fair thing, if we think the concession is worth providing, to provide it up front when people need it or to provide it in arrears long after they have paid it; and whether it is a fair thing to ensure that the concession is easy to access and will not require an arrangement which a lot of people who are in real need simply will not access. That is the problem with the Government's approach, and that is why I have moved these amendments. At the end of the day, this is about a matter of principle.

Mrs Carnell does not believe that conceding a small amount of the gains that she has made from moving from a FID to a combination of FID and debits tax is worth it, to ensure that disadvantaged people are not adversely affected by the change. I think that is money well spent. I am disappointed to hear that the Chief Minister thinks that she has better uses for the money than assisting disadvantaged people adversely affected by this legislation.

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