Page 2886 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is certainly contributed to by a number of factors. It is a situation that is going to be exacerbated, in my view. I said it yesterday and I see that someone much more competent than I in the field of economics, Dr Richardson, expressed the same view today—that is, that we will see these rents increase.
Landlords in a market such as the ACT will not absorb the charges that the territory is imposing on property owners. They will flow through to taxpayers. It may be easy for those who are on subsidised housing through defence, government or diplomatic postings to deal with these charges, but there is a large number of our community—for example, many of those who work for us here in the Assembly—whose accommodation is not being subsidised. They will have to find those costs and try and provide for themselves in a climate where not only is the market tight but costs are also going up at an extraordinary rate, due in no small part to the extra charges we are imposing on owners.
Consider those in the ACT who are financially vulnerable and have very little extra income to absorb these new imposts. I am genuinely concerned about how those people are really being expected to cope. It is basically opportunism that is seeing the territory squeeze hundreds of extra dollars from Canberra households every year.
This is an unacceptable and inequitable burden. It will be extra painful for families. It will be very difficult for retirees, many of whom are commonwealth public service superannuants whose incomes go up on a CPI basis. That will no longer ensure that they stay in line with the costs of government. And, of course, it will be difficult for those on other fixed incomes who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Business will certainly not be immune to the additional fees and charges imposed by this government. In fact, their burden is particularly acute. Commercial properties can expect increases of 19 per cent in average unimproved values to their land, translating into total government charge increases of up to 60 per cent.
It should not be surprising to see many small businesses such as video stores, restaurants, take-aways, hospitality venues, entertainment centres and retail outlets experiencing a significant fall in trade as a result of these new charges being imposed. At the budget breakfast the Chief Minister, to my absolute amazement, said he struggled to know what he could say that lunchtime to the Council of Social Service when I was proclaiming the benefits of tourism. But if you stop and take stock of things for five seconds, you realise that in fact there is a very direct correlation between buoyancy of employment and those who end up needing the services of welfare.
The potential reductions in expenditure in areas of discretionary activity will translate into the employment area. Casual employees in particular would be the most likely to experience the effects of employers’ economic hardship, as they will see their hours reduced or shifts cut altogether.
We hear Mr Gentleman repeatedly go on about the plight of the worker, but here is a situation where we are going to strike hard at the position of discretionary spending. Those businesses that see their sales soften as a result of extra costs and people’s inability to enjoy themselves as they would will, in fact, apply this in relation to the students, other young people and others that are employed in their businesses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .