Page 1785 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
partners have made it harder for families to pay the bills. They have made it harder for families to get by. I think it is particularly disappointing that they are doing all they can to limit the effectiveness of this bill. That is why Mr Smyth’s amendment should be supported.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (11.22): As I said in my speech, we think that we should be starting with those direct taxes and see how it can evolve over time. This is what Mr Smyth did have in his explanatory statement. We need to start with those impacts that are known impacts. When you start to talk about those indirect taxes and charges it can be quite difficult. For example we cannot tell what proportion of land tax is passed on to renters. With the lease variation charge what we saw was that when it was charged at a flat rate on the multidevelopments we did not see a drop in the prices of what those units sold for. We did not see a drop in the cost of rent for renters who were living in those properties.
This is a complicated thing. It is not just a simple, straightforward exercise. It is a complicated thing. We do need to be looking at it over time. We are open to including this in the future but let us start with something that is solid and then look at the methodology and how you would put that into the statement.
As I said in my speech earlier, it is nonsense that the Greens are not concerned about those who are doing it tough. We are. We have been the ones talking about those on pensions and benefits. We have been the ones who have recognised there is a group who sit just above that concessions threshold who really are doing it tough in so many ways. So what have we done? We have come in here and put on the table legislation to make it more flexible to pay off fines. That will be of real benefit to many of those individuals and families.
We have come into this place, we have lobbied and pushed and we have got greater energy concessions. It was falling behind; it was not indexed. It is now indexed and it is assisting in a real, direct way. It is assisting those who are finding it hard to pay their utility bills. We have been in this place and we have pushed and we have got greater energy efficiency in our public housing stock. That will now be extended to private housing as well. That is a real, direct benefit that will be realised by many individuals and families out there. So we have been in here doing the real work, putting in place those things that need to happen.
Let us be very clear. Just because at this point in time the indirect stuff is not included in the statement it does not mean that you do not stop debating the merits. It does not mean that you stop looking at and analysing whether what is being proposed in a budget is a good thing, a fair thing or a detrimental thing to many people. Of course we are still going to do that. The statement is not going to change that. I would expect that all of us will be in here raising those issues during estimates and also during the debate on the budget.
As I said, we will be supporting what is before us with the direct impacts. We do expect, as I said in my speech, that this will be something that evolves over time. But it is not just a simple exercise. It does require a level of analysis and we are going to have to make sure we get that right. We do not want to put out inaccurate statements
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video