Page 824 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would always welcome more assistance to people living in poverty, but the real questions this motion puts to the Assembly are these: how effective is the ACT government’s concessions scheme in assisting those people living on poverty; does it really assist those living in poverty or does it assist others instead and can it be made better?
What the Greens and, I believe, members of the public and community sector are looking for is a consistent and effective whole-of-government policy on concessions. We want each concession program to have a clear description of the need it responds to. We want to know that concessions are effectively targeting the most disadvantaged residents. Given changes in people’s ability to access a federal government health care card, for example, we believe that some people will be financially worse off and therefore unable to access concessions.
While I recognise that ease of administration is the basis of eligibility for some ACT government concessions on federal government determinations, I am wondering if this is still the most appropriate method of confirming eligibility for some concessions. A balance needs to be sought between equity of access to the concession and the ACT government administrative costs for the concession scheme. I do not think we are currently experiencing a fair balance in this area. We want to be able to identify clearly in ACT budget papers how much the ACT government is putting into its concessions program, and not just utilities concessions. I mean everything—from spectacles to home owner rebates. We want the public to have access to a document that outlines the concessions available to them in an electronic and hard copy format. Not everyone has access to the web and not everyone can navigate through the multitudes of government publications.
We also want to know that the current and future governments of the ACT will undertake a periodic review of concessions effectiveness, perhaps every three years, rather than just rely on the haphazard, once a decade portfolio-specific reviews that currently take place. As circumstances change so, too, should concessions. For example, while the $35 rebate on glasses for pensioners has been available, the cost of glasses has probably gone up.
Some concessions will inevitably become outdated over time, despite the care taken in their design. This highlights the importance of continued periodic reviews of concessions to ensure that they have not been made redundant by time and are still meeting their objectives. We want to see some consistency in the approach that is taken to concessions. For example, concessions and concessional rates currently provided to pensioners but not health care card holders should probably be extended to health care card holders to ensure horizontal equity.
Given the amount of money spent each year on concessions and the crucial role they play in poverty alleviation, it is important that each concession effectively responds to community need and represents good value for the government and the taxpayer. I hope the ACT government lends its ear to the concerns I have raised—I notice the amendment that has just been circulated—and acknowledges the problem that lies before it. We need to do something about concessions in the ACT. It looks as though the ACT government has the courage to tackle the problem, but I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on this topic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .