Page 3901 - Week 12 - Thursday, 29 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
on environmental services, four per cent on housing, three per cent on planning and regulation, three per cent on public transport, two per cent on events, and one per cent on sport and recreation—all spent here in the territory. So all of the money that Territorians pay in their rates and taxes is spent on them, here in the territory.
Contrary to the slogans we hear from the opposition about the government raiding rates and taxes, we spend them all on Territorians here in Canberra. So it is important that we move away from the three-word slogans that we have heard from the opposition, and that we provide the truth to Canberrans about where their rates and taxes go.
It is important that we continue to move on in removing inefficient taxes and providing incentives to people, for example by enabling those who want to move house to pay less in stamp duty. We have done that especially with people who want to age in place, to stay in the areas where they have grown up but to move to smaller accommodation, by providing an incentive of lower stamp duty, or no stamp duty in some cases, for older Canberrans who are moving to downsize. That allows them the ability to age in place.
There are other incentives too that we offer, but I think the key message here is that we are moving away from inefficient taxes, to give people across the territory the incentive to age in place, as well as other incentives, and of course to be upfront—(Time expired.)
Discussion concluded
Health (Patient Privacy) Amendment Bill 2015
Debate resumed.
MR RATTENBURY (4.49) in reply: I rise to close the debate on the in-principle stage and I thank members for their contribution to the discussion today. The bill before us is in many ways very simple. It seeks to provide a zone around abortion services premises in Canberra whereby a woman may enter unimpeded. It seeks to create a right of entry to safe, legal and medically supervised treatment without being confronted, harassed or intimidated.
Beyond this very clear and simple issue are arguments about freedom of expression and human rights and religious views. I will talk to the first two issues but will not seek to impose my views on religion on the Assembly, just as I have asked others to respect the personal views of others in the public space.
As I said, this is, on face value, a very simple bill but, with many complex and fine moving parts, it has required a lot of critical thinking to find the right balance. One of the interesting themes amongst some submissions is a call for a more standardised and simple approach to the protected area and times, by requesting a standard 50-metre bubble around the building. There are some others who, while being supportive overall of the intent of the bill, believe that it goes too far in proscribing limits on prohibited behaviour. It is my considered opinion that this final bill finds the line between these views.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video