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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1533 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Speaker, Mrs Carnell's approach is an approach which will produce anomalies. The approach proposed by the Labor Party and the approach adopted by the Greens here, we think, is a correct approach. It is one which ensures that there are not going to be anomalies and inconsistencies and that all the disadvantaged people in the community are going to be treated the same. I commend Ms Tucker for moving the amendment. I think it is an appropriate amendment. The Labor Party will be supporting it.

MS TUCKER (5.08): I thank Mr Whitecross for the Labor Party's support for this amendment. I know that it is not what they really wanted, but it is a compromise. I am very concerned that our amendment is not going to get up. I want to support what Mr Whitecross just said. It is a very ad hoc process when you target one group and when the explanation for targeting that group holds no water anyway. The explanation was that older people use cheques. But we know that the debits tax will be extended in the future to apply to all accounts in the ACT. So, that is just going to look really silly, apart from anything else, as a rationale for choosing this particular group.

The other thing I am not happy with is the fact that the figures from this Government keep changing. Yesterday I was given one set of figures for the cost of administering the proposal in our amendment, and now we have another $220,000 put onto that. I know that things have been hasty, but I do not think it is a good process for sound decision-making and good policy. I do not know why we did not have an opportunity to have this debate before the budget. Then we would not have had so much pressure put on all members of this place. Because of concerns of equity and consistency in a process, we are going to cause some other group in the community to suffer. Which program will be cut and which program will not receive funding because we took this stand on some kind of consistency in the process of targeting which group would achieve and receive some kind of subsidy for this new tax? It is a very unsatisfactory process all round, and I am very sorry to hear that Mr Osborne also is not going to support this amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Tucker's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

	AYES, 8	 	NOES, 9

	Mr Berry	Mrs Carnell
	Mr Corbell	Mr Cornwell
	Ms Horodny	Mr Hird
	Ms McRae	Mr Humphries
	Ms Reilly	Mr Kaine
	Ms Tucker	Mrs Littlewood
	Mr Whitecross	Mr Moore
	Mr Wood		Mr Osborne
			Mr Stefaniak

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