Page 4927 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Canberra Liberals, after a lot of thought, consideration and discussion have chosen the figure 30.
That is not good enough for Mr Rattenbury. He wants to go to the far end, to the expensive end. I point again to the little regard that Mr Rattenbury had in his remarks for the cost that this will have on the people of Canberra. It is all right for him; he is earning a substantial income. Mr Corbell talks about the effort that they are going to put in for low income people. They are actually going to increase the concessions. The increase in concessions for electricity were roundly criticised by the community sector for not being generous enough.
Mr Smyth: What are they doing for middle income earners?
MRS DUNNE: But then, what about the middle income earners? What relief will there be for the single income family where they have two or three kids at school? They will, on the surface of it, have a substantial-looking income. But by the time you take out all the outgoings that it takes to run a family, they will be doing it tough. Increases in electricity bills cause them to do it tough.
Mr Corbell said here today that by their estimation the expansion of the feed-in tariff scheme will cost every ACT family another $50 a year. If you are poor, if you are a low income earner—and there is a very narrow definition of what a low income earner is—you will get some relieve through the concession scheme. But here we are saying that at the current rate it is going to cost every Canberra taxpayer six per cent—$50 a year.
The people of the ACT can do the multiplication. That is six per cent. It is going to cost them $50 a year. So how much per year is the whole scheme going to cost? How much is it going to cost my neighbours in Evatt with one income who are sending their kids to the local school? It is going to cost them much more than that. That is only what six per cent will do. Just do the math. The people of the ACT are facing bills of thousands of dollars under this scheme.
Mr Rattenbury: Where’s your modelling?
MRS DUNNE: There is no modelling. There is no indication for this government or from the people who are supporting them how much this will cost. But the minister admits—
Mr Corbell: You’re making it up.
MRS DUNNE: The minister here admits that was six per cent—
Mr Seselja: Point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, could you call Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell to order? Call them to order. We have been called to order when we have interjected. They are not only accusing Mrs Dunne of making it up; they are being unruly. I would ask you to call them to order.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Seselja, I did not hear them calling the names you were suggesting, so I think we should just proceed with the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video