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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1937 ..

MR CORNWELL

These relate to concessions which have not been applied to certain people in this community.

At 3.48, the committee notes that the bushfire levy has been withdrawn, and therefore some of the preceding paragraphs are redundant. Nevertheless, there was the withdrawal of the bushfire levy, for whatever reason-whether it proved to be too hard to implement; because it was too politically difficult; or perhaps because the Treasurer did not know how much money was in Treasury.

Irrespective of the reasons for it, the fact remains that the concept-the idea-of denying certain vulnerable people in the community some sort of concession because they were not pensioners is, in my opinion, unacceptable. I am, of course, referring to self-funded retirees.

There appears to be a philosophy in this chamber-certainly on the government's side-of "them and us". One could almost go so far as to say that all pensioners are worthy and all self-funded retirees are not. I do not believe any sensible person is prepared to accept that argument. And yet the evidence is very clear from this government. The rates and the bushfire tax were both targeted to deny low income self-funded retirees any reductions whatsoever.

In fact, it went a bit further than that because the government also allowed for people in housing trust properties to be exempt from the levy, irrespective of whether they were paying full market rent for their properties or not.

Mr Wood has provided me with information about this. There are 11,182 current rent accounts, with 1,940 people paying full market rent. Why shouldn't those 1,940 people have been charged the bushfire levy, if it had gone forward? I suggest there is no reason whatsoever why they should not have paid it. How do we know what sort of money they may be earning if they are paying full market rent? They could be earning $100,000 a year. Why should they be exempt? I don't believe that, as far as equity is concerned, the government has demonstrated anything like the fairness that should have been applied.

I am pleased, of course, that the bushfire tax has been removed, if only to save a great many people, who may be asset rich but cash poor, the demands placed upon them by a government that talks a great deal about equity but rarely practises it in this place.

I would like to go a little further into the report and discuss 4.50-supported accommodation. This is an extraordinary situation, members. Mrs Cross referred to it in question time today. Mr Corbell, the planning minister, said that there were special features for people 60 years and older, and that there was no consistency across the territory for people who are accommodated in supported accommodation. Certainly all the people I have spoken to-the churches and the various groups involved in providing supported accommodation for the aged-believe it should begin at age 55 and not age 60.

What has happened over at St Anne's Convent is simply bizarre. The developer has been told that all people entering the place must be 60 years of age or more, not 55-and told after the event. Thus the developer estimates losing some 30 per cent of potential clients.

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