Page 2595 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government must acknowledge that increased ACT charges do impact on residents’ ability to enter the housing market. Unfortunately, they are too willing to dismiss the increases of the last two years as insignificant or affordable. I recall some weeks ago in the last school holidays being in the car with my kids and hearing the Chief Minister’s talkback show. A woman called in and said, “I am on a pension, and we have had no adjustment for CPI in the latest round, but you have increased my charges with this WPI thing.” The Chief Minister was saying, “Well, you know, that is the way it is. It is not a lot of money.” Well, I can imagine that in his situation it probably does not seem a lot, but I would not have thought the Chief Minister would be so detached from the real world not to acknowledge the fact that many of our older residents who are on fixed incomes live on very, very tight budgets, and a few dollars here and there make all the difference between their capacity to operate and to live and enjoy a very basic existence.
For that reason, whilst I understand that there are exemptions and relief that exist, I think that the insensitivity towards the needs of our older people remains as an increased issue of concern. The truth is that the increases introduced by Mr Stanhope have had a massive impact on many residents, and people now have to find hundreds of extra dollars for the ACT’s taxes and charges regime.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have indicated, the stamp duty is, of course, an onerous burden, but I have indicated that we are keen on seeing some upfront relief for people entering the housing market. It seems that these increased charges that we continue to face as a broader community will be left in place, despite constant improvements and under-forecasting on revenue outcomes for the territory. But I will continue to plead to this territory government to use their majority to ensure that they do return some of these excess taxes to the people of Canberra.
I find it impossible to accept the line of argument that we have got to charge more because the services are more. We then are swimming in surplus outcomes as a result of that, and then we say, “Well, we cannot consider tax relief.” It is so blatantly transparent, it is obviously part of the government’s strategy to build up a war chest for the next election and then say, “All is forgiven; we are sorry we got it wrong and we will dish the money out,” and hope that the people of Canberra are naive enough to give them another term in government. I will be very surprised if that happens, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the next 12 months I think the position of the people of Canberra will firm up in terms of their view of the relative performance of the two major parties in this place.
In conclusion, until the government acknowledge how hard their measures have made life for the people of Canberra, the impact of any housing affordability initiatives will be muted. I mentioned before that I appreciate the Treasurer—who I think we have lost in battle—making officials available for a briefing on this bill. I thank those officials for the detailed and informative briefing they provided in such a professional fashion, as they always do.
Despite my broader concerns about taxes and charges impacting on property owners, the measures introduced in this bill make sense, and the opposition will be supporting this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .