Page 3685 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
average as well. This government does not care. That is why we are going to keep putting forward plans to deal with it. This mob will continue to pile on that pressure because they really do not care about the cost of living. (Time expired.)
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.19): It is interesting that Mr Seselja never answers the claim, which of course is an entirely accurate one, about why the Liberal Party voted against measures to provide assistance to low income households in the most recent budget. Why did they do that? Why did they vote against measures that provided an additional $131 a year to low income households to assist them with their utility costs? They did not do it because they are not really interested in cost of living pressures; they are just interested in getting themselves elected into government. They think that a simplistic assertion that “we care about cost of living pressures” is sufficient to garner electoral support.
A government that is serious about addressing cost of living pressures, and that is serious about assisting low income families and those most vulnerable to price movements in utility costs, fuel costs and so on, will target those households and focus their assistance on them. That is what a credible political party and a credible government do to deal with these issues. They do not just make some sweeping assertion that “you’re not better off, and we’re the guys to fix it”—which is the assertion of those opposite. Instead, they focus on those households that are facing disadvantage, those households that are vulnerable, those households that are disproportionately subject to any price movement in relation to electricity, gas, water or vehicle fuels. That is where you focus attention.
Today we heard an absurd argument from the Leader of the Opposition that seemed to include issues about live animal export. Apparently, for the Leader of the Opposition, live animal export is now a cost of living pressure. We heard him use the argument in his speech: live animal exports are apparently a cost of living concern for people living in Calwell, Banks or Charnwood. That is how absurd Mr Seselja’s argument is. He had to bring live animal exports into his argument. That is exactly what he did. What an extraordinary argument from the Leader of the Opposition.
Let us talk about what a credible government and a credible political party do to respond to the price pressures that low income households face. It is low income households that are the most vulnerable. In the most recent budget, the government delivered an additional $131 per annum per low income household to improve concession arrangements for energy and water costs for those households. That was the most significant increase in the past decade to assist those households.
The maximum concession per annum now available for those eligible households is $346 per annum. Let us compare that with other jurisdictions. Let us compare it with Victoria, which provides a maximum concession per annum of $270; South Australia, which provides a maximum concession per annum of $235; or south-east Queensland, where the maximum concession is $120 per household. Let us compare those. Then let us take into account the comments that the Treasurer made. He made it clear that,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video