Page 4160 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Greens opposition to this bill is supported by three key recommendations from the February 2004 public accounts committee report on revenue raising issues in the ACT. In short, recommendation 6 encourages the government to consider more progressive taxes; recommendation 11 calls on the government to establish a comprehensive concessions policy; and recommendation 15 requests the government to consider the feasibility of incorporating environmental concerns into revenue-raising measures.
The $16 million raised annually through this revenue measure will come from ACT residents, as the tax will almost inevitably be passed on by utility providers. The average increase in utility costs at the household level will be $137 per annum. Add to that the 6 per cent rise in rates—rates then to be tied to the wage price index—the $84 fire and emergency levy, the $200 false alarm call-out fee, the increased ambulance levy and the $84 to $137 water abstraction charge, and it is easy to see why so many people are concerned about the impact these revenue measures will have on low-income households.
During the briefing my staff and I received on this bill we were informed that the ACT government could increase its provision of community service obligations after it determined the impact of the utilities tax on consumers. We were also told that the Essential Services Consumer Council had a virtually unlimited ability to decrease or wipe away a person’s debt in cases of hardship. Our concern is that the change in community service obligations would occur only after a demonstrated change in price as a result of this tax. We can expect the government’s work on this matter to take some time, probably years. Until the government takes these steps, recipients of CSOs will have to deal with the increased price passed on by utility providers.
I draw to the attention of the Assembly the ESCC’s 2005-06 annual report. It notes that the number of hardship applications considered by it has risen dramatically over the last few years, and that perhaps, due to council’s increased workload, the number of people not meeting its conditions has risen. It worth also considering who is eligible for CSO concessions. Centrelink pensioner concession cardholders, veterans affairs pensioner concession cardholders and Department of Veterans’ Affairs gold cardholders are able to access a 65 per cent rebate on water and sewerage supply charges. It should be noted that this rebate is not available on consumption costs or to private tenants.
Centrelink pensioner concession cardholders, Centrelink health care cardholders and veterans’ affairs pensioner concession cardholders are able to access a CSO capped at $189.11 per annum for electricity and natural gas charges. However, this rebate is also not available to private tenants. There is no such concession for telecommunications, although the Australian Communications and Media Authority is currently considering an industry-regulated code of practice regarding consumer credit management.
The fact that health care cardholders can apply for a CSO on their consumption of electricity and natural gas, but not for the sewerage supply charge or the consumption of water, shows the inconsistency in the government’s ad hoc concessions program; I dare not call it a policy for it is apparent that the government does not have one. I also
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .