Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1874 ..
MR TUCKER (continuing):
housing. Government housing has become more and more tightly targeted and, with a very tight private rental market, the pressure on people of limited income to buy their first home is increasing.
For many people there is a poverty trap in mortgages. Increases in interests rates, of course, have exaggerated the position. My concern is for those people at the lower income levels, the people that the GST will hit hardest, the people on whom increases in takeaway food, clothes and other basics will hit hardest, the people for whom reduced luxury car prices make little difference, the people who benefit least from the tax cuts.
I would feel more supportive of the First Home Owner Grant Bill if it were tightly targeted to those most in need, rather than being equally available to all. It is another example of the ill-considered approach to overcoming inequity in our society. I was quite interested to see Mr Humphries' theatrics in the last debate and his absolute disbelief that anyone could raise issues other than the price, such as the fact that the life of a child in Queanbeyan might be saved by education campaigns and the availability of low-alcohol beer. The fact that this might have some kind of impact on society over our border could not be part of the discussion.
It is really interesting to me to see this from a government which is promoting social capital. Earlier today I quoted Eva Cox about the tendency to ridicule alternative views and how dangerous it can be when the people who support the dry approach to economics like to use ridicule. I have been noticing Mr Humphries and Mrs Carnell doing that by saying, "Aren't the Greens silly in talking about something other than the bottom line?" It would be much better if Mr Humphries just put the arguments for debate. I did raise the issue of social benefit across the border.
Mr Humphries: I will use satire instead.
MS TUCKER: What we have seen with competition policy-
Mr Moore: You have been ridiculing our attitude to social capital from the moment we released the budget.
MS TUCKER: I have noticed, Mr Speaker, that you tolerate lots of interjections on some occasions and on others you do not. I would appreciate consistency.
Mr Humphries: That sounds like sarcasm to me.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. I am quite happy to-
MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries thinks that that is sarcasm. I am sorry if he thinks that it is sarcasm. I was pointing out to you, Mr Speaker, some concerns I have about how the standing orders are administered.
MR SPEAKER: Please continue, Ms Tucker. Do not worry about that.
MS TUCKER
: We know that with competition policy generally, which is also supported by this government, we often do see a race to the bottom. That is really very unfortunate. It is perfectly legitimate for people in this place to raise issues other than the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .