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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4114 ..

federal government is happy with a two-tiered Australia; the top tier votes for them, and the rest we will not worry too much about.

On the study published by Judy Yates: it showed that, on average, outright owners received more than five times the amount of assistance provided to purchasers. On average, high-income, that is, $1,210 to $2,260 per week—in 1999 dollar terms—outright owners receive a total tax benefit of close to $9,000 per household per year. On average, home purchases in the bottom 80 per cent of the income distribution income levels at and below $1,200 per week—in 1999 dollar terms—receive a benefit of less than $500 per household per year through the tax system.

It is clear that any measures we try in the ACT have to be absolutely focused on equality, on making sure that people at the lower end of the income spectrum actually get the assistance they need to make this society more equitable. Federal policies have created a less equitable society, a two-tiered Australia, and the gap between the lowest and highest incomes has increased. So the ACT government tax concessions for first home buyers being means tested and being on the sliding scale will go somewhere to address this concern.

However, as I said, on the other scale of addressing need, narrowing the wealth and wellbeing gap, the government here I believe has to do much more. It has failed to ensure more affordable rental housing, as I said at the beginning of this speech, and, importantly, public housing for low-income households. This is the need that the government really must address as urgently as possible.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (11.01): I will be brief. First of all, may I thank Mr Hargreaves for a little ray of sunshine or positiveness in what otherwise promises to be a long and turgid day. The signs are already there, with Mrs Dunne sneering at the fact that we might stand up and mention something positive that the government has done and writing that off as politics at the end of the electoral cycle. What else do you think the whole program today is going to be about? But just let me respond to a couple of things.

Mrs Dunne made the assertion that we had merely followed New South Wales. Let me give you just one fact. The New South Wales mini-budget that changed their first home owners concession and land tax had a net benefit of, I think, $600 million to the Treasury, to consolidated revenue in New South Wales. We are a lot smaller. The changes that we made had a cost to net revenue of about $10 million-plus. So in fact what happened in the ACT was that we provided a package embracing the first home owners and, in relation to land tax, encouraged investment in the ACT in housing and rental property; we have made a contribution or provided concession. It is a huge difference, but do not expect that to be recognised by them on the other side.

The other point that I would make of course is that there has been wide acceptance across the community as to what this government did in relation to first home owners. And I think that is the litmus test. We are getting used to, unfortunately, the hyperbole that comes from Mrs Dunne, but the facts are that this package was widely accepted—universally accepted, I would have to say.

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