Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 457 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

children, people well into adulthood, who may be on a disability pension and who may be living with aged parents who are perhaps on a pension themselves?

We already know, although not much attention is paid to it in some quarters, the problems that people on disability pensions often have in that they are on that benefit but, because of their disability, they are already suffering a great deal more expense, having to buy equipment, perhaps having to get someone to cut the lawn and having to pay for additional medication. If Mr Moore has not heard that being on a disability pension is expensive, I certainly have. There are the costs of modifications to wheelchairs and car and all sorts of things. We ought to give some consideration to the expenses of people on disability who are living with a prime tenant, if I can use that term. Further than that, I am concerned because this amendment will wipe out all the other concerns; it will wipe them all out.

I do not want members coming in here and being beguiled by Mr Moore when he says that he has compromised, because he has not compromised. In fact, Mr Moore is responding to sound arguments presented to him through members or directly from the community about the impact of this item. It is a response that is reasonable but not fully comprehended. I would still argue that that amendment ought to be rejected. I am prepared to see that other residents of a house pay 25 per cent where the income levels merit that; I think that is a reasonable proposal. But let us go back and do it properly. Let us not amend this legislation; let us knock it out today and then next week or next month Mr Moore can come back with a fully thought out proposal on this measure. That is what he ought to be able to do.

The select committee required of the government, made a recommendation to the government, that it do some more work. Mr Kaine referred to the need for additional work. When that committee reported quite some time ago, it sought for the government to come back and tell us the result of some of its work in the area of the impact on people who might be required to move on from their houses. The government chose not to do that work. We can see evidence of the problem created as a result of that.

Just in Mr Moore's amendment alone, the government has come back and said, "We have not seen all the ramifications of it; therefore, we have got some changes to make." I suggest that it is not just in this measure. In that other measure of being required to vacate premises, if the work had been done, if the government had been in a position accurately to be able to see what the impacts would be, I think it might have had a different attitude. I think that it might have been different and I think that the government would have made changes to that as well.

I say again for the benefit of members who have not heard all the debate that the effect of Mr Moore's amendments will be to wipe out this disallowance motion and just reinsert one small component of what we are talking about. If Ms Tucker has an amendment that might be able somehow to overcome that problem, I would be very happy to hear what she has to say. I am prepared to leave it to her.

MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again to Mr Moore's amendments.

Leave granted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .