Page 3688 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 13 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
having an overseas holiday, a new kitchen, a new car or anything like that anytime soon. Susan is very lucky that she owns her home because the pension assumes that you are not a renter. There is no way, on the age pension, that she could afford to privately rent in the ACT. Anglicare on a regular basis does that analysis and finds that to be true.
However, for Susan, downsizing is not a very good option because after transaction costs she will not come out ahead financially. In Susan’s area, like many parts of Canberra, older houses like hers are worth the same or, in many cases, less than townhouses and apartments because the multi-unit homes are generally all new. Taxation reform means that Susan’s insurance costs less than it did before and it does mean that if she did decide to move, if she did manage to find somewhere to downsize to, she would pay less stamp duty than she would have a few years ago. But on the other hand her rates are going up faster than her pension. This is probably affordable now, particularly as she does qualify for a concession—and I do applaud the recent work on rationalising concessions more—but at a fixed concession what is going to be the situation in 10 years time, given the likelihood that rates will be rising faster than her income?
The Greens are saying that, from a fairness and equity point of view, the government needs to monitor this situation and make sure that taxation reform is not having unintended consequences for vulnerable, fixed-income Canberrans like Susan. It is fine for us in the Assembly. We are all well paid. It is also fine for the public servants who provide tax advice to the Treasurer. They have secure professional incomes. The point that I am trying to make is that we cannot assume that it will be fine for everyone in the community just because it is fine for us.
The Chief Minister and I had a long discussion about this topic in estimates. I must admit that it did annoy me. He repeated the same comments in his speech just now. I will quote what he said in estimates because I did not transcribe what he said just now:
I am stunned that no-one asked the question: “What are the age implications of the status quo?”
I was the person who asked that question. He continued:
I turn that question right around and say: “Do we want to become a society that locks young people out altogether because we are mostly concerned about the situation of asset-rich, income-poor people? What about asset-poor, income-poor people? Why do we not focus on them a little?”
With all respect, Chief Minister, this is the point. We need to make sure that our taxation reform is fair and equitable for all the vulnerable people in Canberra. It needs to work for people who are asset-poor and income-poor who struggle to get a home at all. It needs to work for people like Susan, who may count as asset-rich but who are on low and fixed incomes. And it needs to work in some way for people who bought a house when they had a good job but have now been forced into insecure work that barely covers mortgages.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video