Page 482 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR BARR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, there we have it. In the approach to this debate, in the interjections we know exactly where the Liberal Party stands. They cut funding to concessions. In their view concessions funding should not be targeted to those who need it most.
Let me repeat for the benefit of people in this chamber, people listening to this debate and people who will read it later on. Where did the funding cut come? It came from the abolition of the national partnership on concessions in the 2014 federal government budget, from Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, both now historical figures. Nonetheless, they represented contemporary Liberal Party values. We have contemporary Liberal Party values on display. The thing to cut in the 2014 federal budget was the national partnership on concessions. That is what they thought they should cut.
Then they have the hypocrisy to come into this place, move a motion like this and accuse the government of running a scare campaign on a process that we are undertaking over a period of time to better target concessions to those who need them most. I am happy for that contrast in values and that contrast in approach to be very clear, as it is this morning, as it will continue to be throughout presumably the rest of history. We know where the Liberal Party comes from and we know what they stand for. (Time expired.)
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.26): I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic today because the Greens agree that it is important to get the concessions scheme right for the people who need it in the ACT. We cannot ignore the impact of taxes and charges on our low income residents, and the Greens fully support providing relief to low income earners where it is appropriate.
Concessions in the ACT come in a wide variety of forms. There are rebates for rates, water and sewerage; energy concessions to help people pay their energy bills; special rebates if you unfortunately need home dialysis or are on life support; transport concessions including drivers licence concessions, taxi assistance and ACTION bus concessions; health concessions to help people with artificial limbs, spectacles and other equipment; and even assistance if you cannot afford to pay for a funeral—not to mention all the assistance the government provides to people and organisations to help fund the services and necessities for those in need. This includes places and organisations that offer food, legal advice, services, housing, microcredit loans and various scholarships. And these concessions, rebates, waivers and support all need to fit in with the various concessions that the federal government makes available through its schemes.
I think that underlines the fact that there are a plethora of rebates and concessions available out there, rightly so, but at the same time it invites the questions: are they targeted to the best possible place? Can it be done more effectively? Can they be better targeted? These are the questions that I think are worth asking. To me, that is not something we should not be doing. It is something we should do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video