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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3644 ..

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MR CORNWELL (5.07): Mr Speaker, I move:

After "pensioners"add "and low income self-funded retirees,".

This amendment recognises something that the Assembly agreed to some time ago in relation to low-income, self-funded retirees. Ms Dundas said in her opening comments that low-income, self-funded retirees were covered by the motion, but I have moved my amendment to include them as a belt-and-braces exercise.

The motion talks about "all people on low incomes"and then adds "including more generous concessions for pensioners". I am seeking to add to the phrase "including more generous concessions for pensioners"the words "and low income self-funded retirees". I do not object to rate concessions applying to all people on low incomes, but I do believe that low-income, self-funded retirees should be taken into account in any proposal for providing more generous concessions for pensioners. If they were to apply to pensioners, I would hope that they would also be looked at in terms of low-income, self-funded retirees.

I do not believe that this is a radical amendment. I think that it can be incorporated quite easily into Ms Dundas's motion, which, after all, is asking the ACT government to develop a proposal. That is all it is doing. We are not demanding that they do something; we are asking them to develop a proposal.

The Treasurer and I have argued back and forth across this chamber about just how low-income, self-funded retirees could be accommodated. The Treasurer has a different view from mine in this regard, but that does not necessarily call for an outright rejection. I see no reason why the matter should not be examined by the ACT government in relation to Ms Dundas's motion.

We must remember that many of these people are not by any means wealthy in terms of society in the ACT. Certainly, there are some self-funded retirees who are quite well off. I am not identifying those people. I am not making a blanket request for self-funded retirees to be examined. I am talking about low-income, self-funded retirees.

If one wishes to argue-pedantically, may I suggest-about how to classify low-income, self-funded retirees, I could simply return the question by asking the Treasurer how one identifies all people on low incomes, which is part of Ms Dundas's motion. I am saying that, if we can talk about all people on low incomes, we can talk about low-income, self-funded retirees. I have no difficulty in accepting both.

I urge the government and other members of the Assembly to accept this amendment simply on the basis, firstly, of fairness and, secondly, that it is not going to destroy the concept or the content of the motion that Ms Dundas has moved. I urge members to accept it. As I say, we would be happy to support Ms Dundas's motion, but, in the interests of fairness to a significant number of people in this community and in

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