Page 208 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is also worth acknowledging that those people that joined the land rent scheme at four per cent with a personal income of over $100,000 are fortunate to have access to the program. Under the old scheme they can remain in the scheme regardless of how much their income goes up, and regardless of the income of their partner.
In summary, the Greens support the intent behind the land rent scheme, and we welcome the recent changes in the eligibility for entering and exiting the scheme. We do not, however, support the proposal to give people the option to move from the old scheme to the new conditions. We need to be quite clear that those that entered into the old scheme did so with an understanding of the system. They have derived advantage from that. It has obviously suited them. I accept Mr Barr’s observation that the change to the new scheme does not disadvantage those people that were in the previous scheme in any way, and that is an important test. We simply cannot let people move around systems as government changes the range of incentives. I will not be able to support Mr Smyth’s motion today.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.38), in reply: No points for guessing that neither the Greens nor the Labor Party were going to support this motion. Indeed, in discussions in my office and with other people, people said, “Yes, they’ll bring up the example of the first home owners scheme.” Yes, there are grants in the first home owners scheme, but you end up owning the house and the land. Under this scheme you do not. The government is getting the advantage. It is all loaded to the government. The government gets all of the advantage out of this scheme, and, as people are finding now, if they were totally honest and declared everything as they did, they have been disadvantaged, and others have gained advantage by not declaring or putting both partners’ names on the lease.
There is, I think, room to move here. It is interesting that the Greens’ excuse seems to be that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I am not sure what the bureaucratic nightmare is. If somebody asks to change from the old scheme to the new scheme, why is that such a nightmare? I would be really interested in an explanation for that. Does Mr Rattenbury feel that our bureaucrats are so inept that they could not manoeuvre somebody from scheme A to scheme B? I am sure that they could. I am sure that if the minister wanted it, they could. But in this case what we have is some legislation for a scheme that was badly drafted from the start. We have a minister who has had to make changes because they did not get it right and what he does not want to do now is make further changes to give some fairness back to the system. It would not be hard to do.
Those that have written to me—and I know there have been articles in the Canberra Times where people have complained as well—will get small comfort from the advantages that those who are members of the old scheme and paying four per cent have, as opposed to members of the new scheme who get two per cent. If you are a young family or if you are a cash-strapped family, that difference between four per cent and two per cent can be quite critical. On the numbers that I used before, it is the difference between three per cent of your gross wage and 10 per cent of your gross wage. That is significant for families, particularly young families starting out. In particular, if one member of the partnership is a stay-at-home parent, it can be very significant.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video