Page 1447 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
middle income earners who often bear the brunt of tax measures, who often bear the brunt of policy decisions.
We in the Canberra Liberals believe very much that governments should look to limit the burden. As I said, many middle and high income earners would not mind paying a little bit more. They need to know they are getting something for that. But I find it interesting, to say the least, that it appears that the government, the Labor Party, will not be supporting this amendment. I hope they have changed their mind. If they have, I welcome that. But the fact that they would not support this suggests that their concern for these middle income families is not what it should be.
Mr Corbell talked about $50 a year and the like but we know that cost will grow. We know that that cost will grow. The scheme is designed to grow, so that $50 will become $100 and $150 and $200 over time. We believe governments should be framing policies to try and protect these families. You do that by looking at policies that get maximum bang for the buck.
As I said, if this amendment is accepted we would be prepared to support Mr Corbell’s amendment and the motion. If we do not recognise this, we will not be supporting the amendment and we will not be supporting the motion. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (7.44): The government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. The reason for that is that the key emphasis in terms of addressing equity considerations must be on vulnerable households and low income earners. We have 19 per cent of all households in the ACT receiving some form of concession right now. That is a significant proportion of ACT households where the ACT government is already funding concession regimes of some form, at some level or another, to assist those households with the impact of utility prices.
The key issue that Mr Seselja and the Liberal Party fail to understand is that vulnerable households exist across the spectrum, and that includes middle income households. Vulnerable energy customers, which is the language used in the government’s amendments, will include a whole range of households that are vulnerable because of job insecurity, household size or family size. A range of factors can make a household vulnerable. That is where taxpayers’ funds should be targeted—to those families that are vulnerable, to those households that are vulnerable and to those households which are on recognised low incomes that therefore place them at increased pressure because of potential changes in utility prices. That is the Labor Party’s position, and it is an entirely justifiable and reasonable position. It recognises that this is about addressing vulnerability. This is about addressing people on low incomes who are least able to address it.
That does not mean, and it should not be construed, that the government does not believe that the impact on consumers overall should be minimised. Of course, it should. Let me put it on the record right now so that it cannot be misconstrued. All consumers—all consumers—should be able to operate in an environment where the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video