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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1529 ..

Clause 16

MS TUCKER (4.56): I move:

Page 13, line 23, subclause (1), insert the following definition:

" `disadvantaged person' means -

(a) a person who is a disadvantaged person; or

(b) 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 of the Commonwealth;".

The amendments I am putting forward are basically the same as Mrs Carnell's, but they are extending the rebate scheme to cover all disadvantaged persons who are health care card holders, not just long-term unemployed people. Mr Speaker, the proposal we have put forward means that we still have a rebate system. It means that there is still certainty and transparency as far as revenue forgone is concerned, and the processing time for rebate applications is less onerous than in the exemption scheme proposed by Labor.

It does, however, have the advantage that the ACT is not picking and choosing the people we think are disadvantaged. I was not impressed by Mrs Carnell's argument that the original group was targeted because they used cheques. Within a year or two, because of the national changes, all debits are going to be subject to this tax. So, we need to focus on the whole group that could be disadvantaged. Our amendments have the advantage that the ACT is not picking and choosing the people we think are disadvantaged. There are very strong equity arguments for applying the rebate to all health care card holders, particularly as a debits tax will be extended in the future to apply to all accounts in the ACT.

There are a couple of other issues that were raised in the debate and that I would like to mention briefly. If it is so expensive to administer a rebate, I wonder why this scheme was proposed at all. I would also make a comment on the timing here. Mr Moore said that he felt that he was in a bind because it was a money Bill and it is his position with a minority government always to support money Bills. We have had this legislation only since April. We have not had time to do much more than we have done. The budget has already been tabled. So, I am not quite sure why Mr Moore was put into that position at all and whether it was necessary that he was. I think it would have been more appropriate if he could have had an opportunity to look at the equity implications of this and make a judgment accordingly, before it became a so-called money Bill. So, I would stress that I am concerned about that timing. Maybe Mrs Carnell has an explanation for that.

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