HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-03-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Council Rate Concessions

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:45): My question is supplementary to whoever wants to answer it. If the government is successful in its campaign and the federal government reinstates the $30 million the government claims has been cut, what would be the implication on South Australia's GST payments?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (14:45): If the commonwealth government reinstates their national partnership, there will be no implications. I have to say that, if the member for MacKillop wants an in-depth briefing from Treasury on the implications of HFE, national partnerships are decided, one, by COAG agreements with premiers.

This particular agreement was negotiated, I think, in the 1990s by then former Liberal premiers. They negotiated a concession for South Australian pensioners from the commonwealth government, which the then Labor government I understand agreed to, but if I am incorrect I will get back to the house and correct that. That national partnership was honoured by prime ministers Hawke, Keating and Howard and honoured by treasurers at every single budget until the last commonwealth May budget.

What you have to ask yourself, Mr Speaker, is: how can a party that went to the election promising no changes to pensions or pensioner concessions make this change? It goes really to their moral fibre. Why would you attack the most vulnerable in our community and then complain when that cut is passed on and then complain when we dare to raise the cut itself? In fact, the outrage here is that we are daring to raise the issue that they made a cut to pensioners. When the Prime Minister was down in the South-East, he admitted to it. He said, 'I admit that we've cut pensioner concessions.'

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir, 98: the question was about the GST implications.

The SPEAKER: Would the Treasurer like to continue?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Speaker, the member for Stuart says that it was a silly question. I disagree; I think that all questions from the opposition are well researched and well thought out.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A personal explanation, sir, if I may?

The SPEAKER: At the end of the Treasurer's answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the member didn't say that, I apologise.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I don't make things up. The issue of this pensioner concession cut by the commonwealth is not debated by the commonwealth. They admit that they have done it; in fact, they are proud of it. They boast about it in their budget. They talk about it, they admit it, and they want the state government to accept and fund the cut. The question is: why does the opposition want us to fund the cut? Why won't they stand with us and oppose the cut made by their friends in Canberra?

The SPEAKER: I think that the Treasurer has made his point and, if he finishes at that point, the member for Morialta's point of order will be otiose. The member for Goyder.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT