HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Council Rate Concessions

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:11): At the start of question time this afternoon the Clerk of the house put on the record that I was presenting, on behalf of many people from across the state, a petition signed by some 13,291 people in regard to pensioner concessions on their council rates. For the record, I think it is important to include the words that those people attached their names to:

The petition of the undersigned residents of South Australia expresses concern that the Government is withdrawing support to the State's most vulnerable by removing Concessions on Council Rates for concession card holders and self-funded retirees.

Your petitioners therefore request your Honourable House to urge the Premier and Cabinet to ensure that South Australian Concession Card Holders and Self-Funded Retirees continue to receive up to $190 annually in Council rate concessions.

I did try to engage with people because I believe in this issue very passionately and I am concerned on behalf of the 160,000 property owners across South Australia who at this stage will be losing that concession if a change does not occur. I thought there was a need for them to stand up and show the parliament—and, by association, the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister for Local Government—that they do not want this to occur and that they are very passionate about it. These are people who have worked hard and served our nation and our state extremely well. They are at a stage of their life now where they are supported by the taxpayer, and it is important that this level of support from the taxpayer continues.

Sometimes political games have been played over this issue, but it is very clear to me, when I read the Rates and Land Tax Remission Act 1986 and its regulations from 2009, that the explicit and very detailed position is that it is a state government responsibility to fund the concession. It has been in existence for some 40 years. It was $150 to a maximum of 60 per cent of the council rates for 27 of those years, and it was increased 13 years ago to a $190 figure.

It is such an important component of the rates for many people that if it is lost from 1 July the situation will be, on an estimate provided to me, and to others no doubt, by the Local Government Association, that impacted property owners will receive a 20 per cent additional cost to their rate notices from 1 July. That is a disgrace. It is an issue that needs to be addressed now and one where political games are not played. The reality is that what these people need is to be given an assurance.

Local government expressed some real concerns two weeks ago—and rightly so—about how they frame their council rate notices. Currently, they have been told that they are gone from 1 July. I believe that for that to occur it is necessary for a regulation to be amended. The Liberal Party has stood up very strongly on this and said that it will not support it and that it will move a notice of motion for disallowance of the regulation, therefore returning it.

Therefore, if a notice goes out from any local government of the 68 that initially does not have the remission because they have been told that it is gone, and then the regulation is disallowed—so, in essence, it is returned and has to be funded by the taxpayer again—does that require an amended notice to go out? If the minister decides to support the regulation change again, gazettes it and we go through this whole process, this complete and utter abysmal, disgraceful situation will continue and the 160,000 property owners who are impacted will shake their head in disbelief and wonder what the hell this parliament is actually doing to them. This 13,291-person petition is from real people. These are people who are worried about their ability to pay their bills, and they are calling upon the parliament to ensure that the government abides by its legislative responsibility and meets that liability and continues to provide it.

When I hear the Treasurer talk about the solution being for the local government to fund it, it means an increase to the other property owners for that to be in place, and it could be in the range of 6 per cent to 8 per cent. That is more money that people who are faced with more cost of living pressures are suddenly required to come up with or, correspondingly, it is a significant drop in the services provided by that council. The petition removes politics from the issue and asks the government to abide by what the legislation that has been in place since 1986 demands of it.

As a member of the opposition, and as someone who has worked within the local government field and who connects quite strongly with older members of the community I have the blessed luck to represent, this is one that has to be fixed or it is one that will come back and bite the government very seriously. People will never forget this. There needs to be a change. Given that part of minister Brock's agreement with Premier Weatherill to form government concerned a review of local government pension concessions, surely it was not a review that removed it completely. The minister needs to acknowledge his responsibility and ensure that the government acts appropriately on behalf of all 160,000 property owners.

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