Chapter 2
Impact on the Living Standards of Households
Compensation - An Introduction
2.1 The Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax is a regressive
tax. It is a flat rate tax and like all flat rate taxes the lower one's
income, the greater the negative impact of the tax on the person's living
standards. Put simply, a household earning $100,000 pays exactly the same
amount of GST on the same goods and services as a household earning $10,000.
2.2 The Government's proposed Goods and Services Tax is even more regressive.
This means that lower income households will pay the same rate of tax
as high income households, and will pay it on a higher proportion of their
spending - a double tax whammy.
2.3 The Government acknowledges the GST is regressive in the document
Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax system (ANTS). They propose
a complex system of compensation comprising tax cuts and increases in
social security payments. The compensation is also highly regressive.
The tax cuts for higher income households far outweigh the increases in
social security payments for lower income households. A single person
earning $100,000 gets an extra $64 a week – twenty five times the
weekly benefit of the poorest single person. A couple with no children
earning $100,000 gets $80 a week, five times the benefit that the poorest
single income family with three children gets.
2.4 Under the Government's proposed tax changes, the top 20 per cent
of income earners get 50 per cent of the benefits from the Government's
compensation package.
2.5 The Government's tax package claims that there are no households
that are made worse off. [1] Evidence presented
to the Committee leads us to strongly question the validity of this claim.
2.6 Indeed the Treasury has revised its estimate of the real price effect
of the GST in the first year from 1.9 per cent to 3.1 per cent. However,
Treasury uses the 1.9 per cent to produce the compensation package which
means many low income individuals and families become losers. Treasury
has presumed prices will fall because of a 100 per cent pass through
of tax reductions. Witnesses to the Committee said that a 70 per
cent pass through was a more realistic assumption. Therefore a more reasonable
estimate of the price impact of the GST is between 4–5 per cent.
2.7 The St Vincent de Paul Society estimates of how much lower income
households spend on essentials means that many families and individuals
are worse off – up to $21 a week worse off.
2.8 The Treasury has also failed to take into account different housing
costs of different households, the higher costs experienced by households
living in regional and remote areas, and the different levels of spending
on health care across households.
2.9 Further, families are inadequately compensated for the costs of children.
The Government's tax package assumes that a child will only cost a family
an extra 30c a week in GST costs. Professor Peter McDonald has concluded
that the package discriminates against families with children.
2.10 As well as problems with the modelling assumptions upon which the
compensation is based, there are also serious flaws in specific compensation
mechanisms, particularly for pensioners.
(a) Inadequacy of modelling of compensation
2.11 A number of groups including ACOSS expressed concerns that the Treasury
modelling:
- Underestimated the effects of the consumption tax changes on the living
costs of low income households by comparison with other households;
- Overestimated the effects on high income households by comparison
with other households; and
- Underestimated the average effects overall. [2]
2.12 ACOSS identified a number of flaws in the Treasury modelling that
gave rise to these results:
- It didn't account of variations in expenditure patterns among different
households. Treasury wrongly assumed for the purpose of its modelling
that all households spend the same proportion of their household budgets
on different goods and services. ACOSS noted that modelling a major
change in the structure of consumption taxation that dramatically changes
the relative prices of different goods and services is a different exercise
from calculating general changes in consumer prices over time.
- It does not take account of variations in savings patterns among different
households. The Treasury model wrongly assumed that all households spend
all of their disposable income. It applied the average price effect
from the consumption tax changes to household disposable income, ignoring
the fact that many low income households spend more than their income
while many high income households spend less than their income. ACOSS
argued that Treasury modelling significantly underestimates the price
effects of the consumption tax changes for low income households and
overestimates those for high income households.
- It underestimates the overall increase in prices faced by households.
ACOSS argued that the modelling underestimated the average effects of
the tax changes on the cost of living of households because the CPI
increase in the first year is included in the calculations and the increases
in the cost of housing are underestimated. [3]
2.13 The Select Committee on a New Tax System noted in its First Report
that one of Treasury's assumptions has drawn `considerable comment'. The
Select Committee reported that:
The calculations have assigned the same cost of living measure to
all households, i.e. an average. Most other modellers disagree with
this approach and prefer to assign different cost of living measures
depending on household income levels. Treasury's objection to this
method is that it relies on data from the ABS' Household Expenditure
Survey, which Treasury considers unreliable. [4]
2.14 The Treasury used the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the basis
of its modelling. It did not use the Household Expenditure Survey (HES)
data despite evidence from witnesses to the Select Committee that it would
be more accurate to do so. The Select Committee stated that the `wider
modelling community', while recognising some flaws in the HES data set,
`makes adjustments to allow for those flaws and then uses it as an invaluable
resource, which has no equivalent in this country'. [5]
Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation:
`Old people eat food, not averages'
Senator BROWNHILL – So why do you want more compensation?
Mr Thomas – On that point, you have to also understand
that with the government's figures, they admit they are an average,
but an average of the total population. The figures that I think the
Melbourne institute used are an average, but an average of older people.
They showed, I think, 3.3 per cent. That is still an average. Older
people do not eat averages; they eat food, they pay for services. If
this is an average of one million pensioners, there could be 250,000
people who are worse off because of the use of that average. We have
been involved in examining the CPI for a number of years. We were appointed
to recent committees on that. We certainly know what it is made up of,
and its implications and its limitations. I think the government's figures
simply do not leave us convinced that they are enough.
Source: Committee Hansard, 10.2.99, p. 553.
2.15 ACOSS noted that an alternative approach to modelling the consumption
tax changes which takes account of variations in spending and saving across
households using the HES data will produce `significantly higher estimates
of the price increases faced by low income households'. [6]
2.16 The Council on the Ageing (COTA) noted that there is strong evidence
that the structure of the basket of goods consumed by older retired, low
income people is quite different from wage and salary earners. [7]
For example, single and retired couples spend 21 per cent of their incomes
on food and non-alcoholic beverages, compared with 14-15 per cent for
a single person or couple (non retired). Single retired people spend 18
per cent of their incomes on fuel and power, medical care and household
services, compared with 11 per cent for a non-retired single person. Retired
couples spend 16 per cent of their incomes on these items, compared to
11 per cent for non-retired couples. [8]
2.17 The St Vincent de Paul Society noted that projections for price
increases are `unrealistically low' where they relate to low income earners.
People on low incomes spend a disproportionately higher proportion of
their incomes on goods which are not subject to wholesale sales tax (WST).
The Society noted that the impression is sometimes given that the WST
applies to all items, including food, vegetables and clothing –`whereas
it affects very little of what low income earners purchase'. [9]
The Australian Consumers Association (ACA) expressed great concern at
the increase in the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables which have zero
tax at present –`an unfortunate consequence of a GST on food is that
low income families may be forced to purchase cheaper and poorer quality
foods in order to make ends meet'. [10]
Families up to $17 a week worse off: St Vincent de Paul Society
The St Vincent de Paul Society took their own survey of families
and concluded that the adverse price impact from the GST package might
be as much as five times that estimated by Treasury (9.5% instead of
1.9%). As a result:
- For a single person earning $10,000, a net loss of $9.47 a week
rather than a gain of $7.61.
- For a sole parent with one child under 5 on $10,000, a net loss
of $11.72 per week rather than a gain of $18.40.
- For a sole parent with two children and one under 5 on $10,000,
a net loss of $17.25 a week rather than a gain of $17.35.
- For a single income couple with no children on $20,000, a net loss
of $21.42 a week rather than a gain of $9.02.
- For a single income couple with one child under 5 on $25,000, a
net loss of $11.25 a week rather than a gain of $24.99.
- For a dual income couple (split 50:50) with one child under 5 on
$25,000, a net loss of $5.64 a week rather than a gain of $32.32.
- For a single self-funded retiree on $10,000, a net loss of $13.16
a week rather than a gain of $1.21.
Source: Submission No.300, pp.30-31, St Vincent de Paul Society.
2.18 Evidence indicates that families will be particularly disadvantaged
under the new tax arrangements. Professor Peter McDonald argued that the
method used by the Government to calculate the price effect of the GST
does not give due regard to families with children, particularly middle
income families (on incomes between $30,000 and $70,000 per annum). Professor
McDonald argued that `the effect is that, at the same income level, families
with children fare relatively less well from the proposed tax reform than
people without children'. [11]
2.19 Professor McDonald argues that the Government's approach to the
calculation of the price effects of the GST on households is flawed. He
submitted that:
- No account is taken of the number of people in a household. This is
a problem for any household with dependents, especially families with
children. Children are a major cost for families but because they do
not earn income, the Government's approach to the calculation of the
impact of the GST makes almost no allowance for their existence. That
is, at the same level of disposable income, the Government calculates
the price effect of the GST to be exactly the same for a single person,
for a couple with no children and for a couple with children.
- The Government assumes that all households spend exactly the amount
that they earn. However, in reality, the relationship between income
and expenditure varies across households. Households with children spend
up to 40 per cent more than those without children at the same income
level and may spend more than their incomes. This error means that in
calculating the benefits to families of the tax package, the Government
estimates the costs of living adjustments for the GST which will be
too high for those that are saving and too low for those who are spending
their savings or borrowing.
- The Government assumes that the expenditure patterns of all people
are the same. The expenditure patterns of individuals of different ages,
incomes and household types vary significantly. Some 30 per cent of
the expenditure of a couple without children is on food, clothing and
recreation. In comparison, these same items accounted for 60 per cent
of the expenditure on a 14 year old child. [12]
2.20 Professor McDonald stated that the Government's estimated price
effects on the costs of children provided in the cameos in the Tax
Reform document are `implausible' as they are `impossibly low' and
`impossibly uniform'. Professor McDonald stated that:
The Government estimates that the GST will raise the costs of a dual
income couple with no children on $30 000 by $9.33 per week. If this
same couple has one child aged between 5 and 13 years, however, their
costs are estimated to rise by $9.63. That is, the Government's estimate
of price rises related to the child is just 30 cents per week. Remarkably,
this cost remains unchanged at exactly 30 cents as the couple's income
rises to $65 000. After that, the GST-related rise in costs of having
a child is estimated to drop falling to zero at $75 000. [13]
2.21 Professor McDonald concluded that if the Government's estimates
of the GST-related price rises for a child were correct at 30 cents a
week, then the compensation of $2.69 per week is generous `but no one
would seriously believe that the price effect of the GST for a child will
be 30 cents. And this 30 cent figure is used in estimating the final column
in the Cameos tables, that is, the amount by which the family will be
better off in the Government's package'. [14]
(b) Inadequacy of compensation
2.22 Evidence to the inquiry strongly indicates that the effects of the
proposed tax changes will be detrimental to the overall living standards
of many Australian households.
2.23 ACOSS emphasised to the Committee that `we believe that many low
income earners will be worse off under the package as it currently stands
and that the government cannot give assurances that in fact that is not
the case and that everybody is better off'. [15]
2.24 Other community and welfare groups expressed similar concerns. The
St Vincent de Paul Society noted that `millions of Australians, mostly
families and individuals on lower incomes, could be substantial losers
from tax reform if Treasury and its modelling end up getting it wrong
as regards the GST impact on the cost of living'. [16]
NCOSS also argued that the tax package delivers the greatest level of
income tax cuts to middle and higher income earners. [17]
2.25 TasCOSS referred to the research undertaken by Professor McDonald
and argued that in Tasmania the compensation will not go as far as it
does in other States because of the higher costs of food and goods as
well as limited competition in retail outlets. Therefore, children from
low income households in Tasmania will be disadvantaged to a greater degree
than children in the rest off Australia. [18]
2.26 The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission (ACSWC) raised
concerns about the tax package in relation to low income families, in
particular, unemployed people and families with children over 16 years.
The Commission noted that while sole parents and pensioners will lose
40 cents of their benefit for every dollar earned over $100 per fortnight
under the tax changes, a single unemployed person who earns only $60 per
fortnight will continue to lose 50 cents of their benefit for every dollar
up to $140 per fortnight and 70 cents for every dollar of earned income
over this amount –`this is unfair in terms of distributing the benefits
of tax reform to all sections of the community'. [19]
ACSWC also noted that under the Family Tax Payment, a family on $27,000
per annum with a child aged 15 years will receive a maximum payment of
$143.92 per fortnight. However, when the child turns 16 the family will
receive a decrease in that payment of $21.72 per fortnight under the Youth
Allowance. The Commission noted that this indicates that families with
children over 16 will be `disadvantaged relative to the rest of the community
as a result of the proposed reforms'. [20]
2.27 A number of illustrative comments reflect the deep community concerns
about the compensation package:
- ACSWC – `it is difficult to draw clear conclusions on the available
data on the impact of ANTS on low-income families and individuals but
issues associated with the Treasury's modelling …remain grounds
for serious concern about any blanket statements that they will be better
off'. [21]
- Anglicare Australia – `for all of these poverty groups, the imposition
of a GST on consumption, especially food will have a substantial effect
on their capacity to make ends meet….In the system under consideration,
we are concerned that the compensation package is not large enough and
will not be enshrined in legislation to prevent its being whittled away
in subsequent years'. [22]
- ACA – `is very concerned about the potential impact of the tax
reforms on people on low incomes, of which a high proportion are older
people. ACA recommend that the tax legislation provide protection to
maintain the standard of living of people on low incomes, so that the
community can be confident that adequate compensation is provided'.
[23]
- VCOSS – the GST `will adversely effect over one million Victorians
if the introduction of a GST is not accompanied by adequate and appropriate
compensation. If this were to occur it has the very real potential to
undermine the social and economic fabric of Victoria'. [24]
- NCOSS – `GST compensation measures for low income earners and
disadvantaged groups are inadequate…its indirect tax changes have
several harsh, and possibly unintended, impacts on those most vulnerable
in the community'. [25]
- TasCOSS – `the Government has most probably underestimated the
impact of the costs of the GST on low income households. It is probable
that the compensation packages to be provided through increased pensions
and personal income tax cuts will not be adequate to cover the increased
costs of food and other goods and services'. [26]
- SACOSS - `compensation measures, such as those proposed in the tax
reform package, can easily be undermined over time and are not seen
as an adequate long-term measure to ensure low-income households are
protected from disadvantage by the introduction of the GST'. [27]
- ATSIC – `the proposed tax regime and compensation arrangements,
would have significant and potentially serious adverse implications
for rural and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities…tax
reform will increase hardship; add substantially more to the cost of
living than the 1.9 per cent calculated by the government;[and] have
minimal benefits at best on real income'. [28]
2.28 Groups were concerned that not only was the compensation inadequate,
but it would be eroded over time as the GST rate rose, as governments
cut budget spending, and, in the case of pensioners, because the commitment
to maintain pensions at 1.5 per cent above CPI is simply not enough to
give pensioners more than what they would have received anyway. Evidence
presented to the Committee reported that in both New Zealand and Canada,
GST compensation has dwindled away leaving the poor poorer. In the case
of New Zealand, St Vincent de Paul warned that St Vinnies Food Bank gained
a substantial middle class clientele after the GST was introduced.
2.29 Many pensioner and other groups questioned whether the measures
would adequately compensate pensioners and other social security recipients
for the impact of the GST and whether the compensation would be maintained
over time.
Pensioners will be worse off: Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants'
Federation:
We… do not believe that the compensation is adequate. Firstly,
government figures are wrong in very many areas. One of them is that
everybody spends the same proportion of their income on food and services.
That is quite wrong. Aged pensioners spend a large proportion of their
income on food and on things like housing and utilities…They have
a very fixed and often inflexible budget. So how do they stretch that
to pay extra for the goods and services that they need? Older people
are dissavers and that means of course that they spend more than they
earn. Older people who have savings…are going to be impacted on
badly there because they will have to spend extra.
Source: Committee Hansard,10.2.99, p.535, APSF.
2.30 Pensioner and other groups expressed concerns about the adequacy
of the 4 per cent pension increase. COTA argued that the cameos provided
by the Government overestimate the benefits to older persons of the tax
package –`it is quite conceivable that for some older people the
price effect of the GST will be significantly greater than 1.9 per cent'.
[29] The National Seniors Association (NSA)
also submitted that `there is sufficient evidence to suggest that that
[1.9 per cent] figure may well be an understatement of the likely impact
of a GST on living expenses'. [30]
2.31 COTA noted that:
2.32 The Australian Pensioners' & Superannuants' League also stated
that the League has `no faith that the compensation package, especially
for aged pensioners will be adequate to compensate for dramatic increases
in essential goods and services'. [32]
2.33 Anglicare Australia commented on the inadequate size and coverage
of the compensation package, submitting that `just as there is pressure
on governments to allow compensation packages to be eroded over time,
there is pressure on them to make them as small as politically feasible
and to restrict their coverage as much as possible. Both these tendencies
are obvious in the Government's proposed compensation package'. [33]
Erosion of compensation
2.34 Pensioner and other groups also raised concerns that the value of
the compensation package will be eroded over time. COTA stated that the
package is `far more fragile and at risk of erosion over the long term'
arguing that it was important that the value of pension and other income
support payments are maintained in relation to cost of living increases
in perpetuity and that the maintenance of the value of the pension in
relation to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) or revised benchmarks
take account of lower income tax rates proposed in the tax package. The
New Zealand experience where compensation measures only lasted a few years
was referred to as a salutary lesson for Australians. [34]
2.35 Anglicare Australia stated that:
2.36 Concerns were also raised in relation to the impact of the GST on
the Government's intention to maintain the pension rate at 25 per cent
of MTAWE. The Tax Reform document states that pensions will increase
by 4 per cent and that `in addition' the Government will ensure
that the single rate of pension does not fall below 25 per cent of MTAWE.
[36] CPSA/APSF argued that while it appeared
that pensioners would benefit from increased community living standards
`pensioners will only receive CPI-related increases, rather than CPI and
wage benchmark rises. So the promise to make sure older people benefit
in real increases in community standards will not be met'. [37]
CPSA/APSF argued that the Government should quarantine the 4 per
cent GST-linked pension increase from regular pension increases. [38]
2.37 This is a very important point and it goes to the heart of the inadequacy
of the compensation for pensioners. Geoff Carmody from Access Economics
made the point clearly in testimony to the Senate Select Committee that
it would only be a matter of time before the compensation would be eroded
to zero. So the Government is misleading pensioners in this pretence that
the GST compensation is on top of existing pension increase
entitlements.
2.38 The Committee raised this issue with the Department of Family and
Community Services (DFaCS) during the inquiry. The Department stated that:
Basically, we take the higher pension rate of two things–25
per cent of MTAWE or the CPI indexation figures…With the four
per cent, that takes it above the 25 per cent so, yes, in a sense
that 25 per cent is overtaken by the four per cent. So, if the four
per cent is giving the higher increase, that is the one that applies.
[39]
2.39 The Department further advised the Committee that:
Consistent with normal practice, after the 4 per cent increase has
been applied the resulting rate of pension will be tested to ensure
that it is not less than 25 per cent of MTAWE. If it is less than
25 per cent of MTAWE it will be increased to that figure. If it is
greater than 25 per cent of MTAWE the higher rate will be maintained.
[40]
2.40 Groups looking after the welfare of the aged raised concerns about
the adequacy and the scope of the Aged Persons Savings Bonus and the Self-Funded
Retirees Supplementary Bonus. These groups were concerned that these one-off
payments do not compensate for the ongoing devaluation of older persons'
financial assets as a result of the GST. Older people in the income ranges
that attract the bonuses will not be significant beneficiaries of the
income tax cuts and yet they have paid income tax on their savings over
their lifetime. [41]
2.41 These groups were also concerned that there is no compensation for
retired people under 60. COTA noted that `this is a serious anomaly given
that early retirement is commonplace'. [42]
NSA also noted that considering the payment is a one-off, it is hard to
justify denying a bonus to a self-funded retiree aged 59 and granting
the bonus to a person in the same age category but one year older. [43]
2.42 In addition to the concerns expressed by these groups, the Committee
received a large number of submissions from people who were close to retirement
or retired and aged between 55 and 59. These people were also greatly
concerned about the likely devaluation of their savings and income and
believed the GST would significantly disadvantage them in the absence
of reasonable compensation. [44]
(c) GST price exploitation
2.43 The Committee heard evidence from many witnesses who challenged
the government's assumption that business would remove all of the pre-GST
taxes (ie there would be 100 per cent pass through to consumers of tax
reductions). This situation could be exacerbated in rural and remote areas
where there is limited or no competition in the delivery of goods and
services. Of deep concern to the Committee were examples of businesses
which are already increasing charges to community groups in anticipation
of the introduction of the GST.
2.44 Car leasing firms have put up prices to child care centres and other
community services in New South Wales and Western Australia. They argue
that as the prices of second hand cars will fall after the GST comes into
effect, they need to price that factor into lease agreements now. Some
funeral directors have also added the GST to the price of pre-paid funerals.
The NRMA has also indicated that it will start charging a GST on premiums.
Now in these cases, the GST has been added to the final price. Businesses
have not taken into account the reductions from the repeal of wholesale
sales tax or other taxes in these cases. This is a signal of just how
open to price exploitation the system will be if the GST is implemented.
2.45 Protection from price exploitation will focus on large one-off purchases
(like televisions or cars), rather than everyday items like food. The
St Vincent de Paul Society suggested that because of this, higher income
earners would get more protection from GST price exploitation than lower
income earners.
2.46 There was recognition that the legislation expands the powers of
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to enforce compliance
and provides significant financial penalties for transgressors. However,
details of how the ACCC will be able to effectively undertake this monitoring
have yet to be determined. Many doubts were expressed, as people simply
could not accept that the ACCC will have the capacity to monitor every
corner store.
2.47 The Committee is aware that in evidence before the Select Committee,
the ACCC acknowledged that there was `no way' it could police every business
and that it would be relying on the marketplace, ex-employees providing
secrets and 18 million people to keep an eye on GST prices. [45]
By responding to complaints the ACCC will be reliant on individuals or
communities having a detailed level of knowledge in relation to prices
and tax changes. The ACCC also conceded in evidence that if there was
perfect competition in the marketplace, it would not exist.
2.48 The Committee is very concerned lower income earners will be forced
to pay higher prices and will receive little protection from an under-resourced
ACCC.
(d) Food and the GST
2.49 The issue of imposing a GST on food raised strong views both for
and against in evidence. Many submissions argued that the inclusion of
the GST on food would have significant health considerations for low income
earners and the aged in particular, while others submitted that to exempt
food would create an administrative nightmare through a range of compliance
and regulatory problems. The complexities and costs which would necessarily
arise from treating some food items as GST-free and others with a GST
included would need to be balanced against the social benefit of such
differentiation. However, the Committee is of the view that in prioritising
the principles of tax reform, equity and fairness should be given far
greater priority than simplicity and cost issues.
2.50 The Committee notes that the Select Committee is examining the overall
economic impact of the inclusion or exemption of food from the GST under
its terms of reference. The Community Affairs Committee has focused its
examination on the health and welfare implications of imposing a GST on
food, especially the impact for the aged and people on low or fixed incomes.
2.51 The Committee understands that the Select Committee has commissioned
Professors Neil Warren and Anne Harding to model the extent to which different
types of households are compensated for the impact of the GST. Their modelling
will estimate the effects of exempting food as an alternative to compensation
as a means of reducing this undeniably regressive and unfair aspect of
the GST. They are due to provide a report to the Select Committee on 1
April, after the Community Affairs Committee has reported.
2.52 Adopting a healthy, nutritious diet is a vital component of achieving
and maintaining good health. Government and NHMRC guidelines advocate
the consumption of a wide variety of breads, cereals, vegetable and fruit
and the avoidance of foods with a high content of fat, sugar and salt.
Currently a range of foods, particularly fresh food, are not subject to
WST. However, under the tax changes all foods would be subject to the
imposition of the GST at 10 per cent.
2.53 The Australian Consumers Association has estimated that the impact
on the cost of a typical supermarket basket of foods would be 8.8 per
cent or $355 per annum more expensive. [46]
2.54 From a public health perspective, the consequence is that foods
that are currently not taxed will become more expensive – and these
include the very foods advocated in the government guidelines as vital
for good health.
2.55 The major concern arising from this consequence, was that these
changes in the price relativities of foods create the anomalous situation
that nutritious foods such as breads, cereals, fruits, vegetables and
certain dairy products become more expensive and will be less affordable
relative to many less nutritious foods. [47]
The inadequacy of the compensation for low income families will provide
an added pressure to buy cheaper, less healthy manufactured food.
2.56 Low income older people and aged pensioners spend a large proportion
of their total income on food. Any increase in food prices would have
a significant impact on the expenditure patterns of these older people.
Many of the groups representing older people reiterated the concerns about
the GST increasing the price of foods, especially fresh foods, while less
nutritious foods may become cheaper, and the negative effects this anomaly
would have on the health of older people. [48]
2.57 COTA noted that there has been concern for some time about the nutritional
deficits of older people especially those living alone. COTA believes
that habits of frugality in terms of essential, healthy food items will
be exacerbated by the imposition of the GST.
2.58 The impact of the GST on food will also impact on people in rural
and remote areas who, on average, are less well off than their urban/metropolitan
counterparts. They already have more limited access to a range of nutritious
foods due to greater cost, poorer quality and reduced availability. The
consequences of imposing the GST on all foods are likely to lead to deterioration
in the dietary situation of people living in these areas.
2.59 TasCOSS and Anglicare Tasmania indicated that due to a combination
of lower incomes and higher grocery prices Tasmanians spend a greater
proportion of their income on food than the population of any other State.
Tasmanians, particularly those on low incomes, would be especially disadvantaged
by the application of the GST on food. [49]
2.60 Concerns were also expressed that this measure would impact detrimentally
on the health of Aboriginal communities, especially those in remote areas.
These communities are already subject to excessive price differentials
for fresh food. The Australian Consumers Association noted that in Aboriginal
Community Stores in the NT, bread, cereals, fruit and vegetables were
on average 26-35 per cent more expensive than the supermarket in the nearest
regional centre. Similarly, in North Queensland a basket of `healthy'
foods was found to cost 175 per cent more than Brisbane prices. The highest
prices and the poorest quality were found in the remote communities of
the Gulf and Cape in Queensland. [50]
2.61 ATSIC referred to a survey of expenditure patterns for indigenous
households in rural and remote communities of WA and NT which showed that
these households spent on average 39.3 per cent of their income on food
which increased to about 54 per cent for larger sized households. [51]
These figures compare with ACOSS figures which show that low income earners
spend about 24 per cent of their income on food, while wealthier people
spend only about 13 per cent. Again, the GST is shown to be a regressive
tax because people with the lowest incomes will pay relatively more than
the people with the highest incomes, with indigenous people being even
further disadvantaged.
2.62 The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) submitted that
a further consideration was the impact of a GST on specially modified
food products necessary for the health of people with specific medical
conditions, eg arthritis, and on services which provide nutritious food
to disadvantaged groups (such as meals on wheels). PHAA was concerned
that these foods and services, which are currently tax free, would increase
in price substantially if the GST is applied to them.
2.63 The Dietitians Association of Australia made reference to the recently
released ABS National Nutrition Survey: Foods Eaten which found that people
living in socio economic disadvantage already consume less of the foods
which constitute healthier choices (eg fruit, meat, fish and milk) than
higher income households. They also experience poorer health. The imposition
of the GST on these nutritious foods is likely to have an even greater
impact on the health inequity of at risk groups in the population. [52]
As Anglicare Australia simply stated, imposing a GST on food `is an extremely
regressive tax which bears much more heavily on people with low incomes
than on those with high incomes'. [53]
2.64 The Dietitians Association of Australia submitted that `dietitians,
and many other professionals in the public health and health care sectors,
believe that a GST on basic foods will make it harder to protect the nutritional
health of Australians and could impact on the already overburdened health
care system'. [54] A number of groups noted
such an impact would run contrary to the Government's public health programs
of encouraging healthier eating to reduce the human and dollar cost to
the community of many preventable diet-related health problems.
(e) Impact on specific groups and communities
Women
2.65 It was argued that the impact of the tax reform proposals will fall
more heavily on women because:
- women in Australia earn less than men and will therefore benefit less
from the proposed income tax cuts ie the large reductions on individual
incomes above $38,000 give higher income individuals (mostly men) a
greater proportional reduction in average tax rates while rate reductions
between $6,000 and $38,000 (mostly women) imply much smaller reductions
in average rates; [55]
- women are poorer than men and will therefore be hit harder by the
GST; and
- women are more likely to purchase goods and services for the household
and will therefore have to bear the costs of the GST.
2.66 The Women's Economic Think Tank (WETTANK) stated that `as women
are the low income earners and the managers of household finances, the
gender issue is that many more women will be unfairly taxed than men'.
[56]
2.67 Professor Patricia Apps of the University of Sydney argued that
the Government's shift to a `joint tax' system would impact adversely
on women. Under the proposals, the tax burden is shifted from single to
dual income families and this `means higher taxes for the second earner,
typically the female partner on lower pay'. This impacts on:
- equity - as single and dual income families do not enjoy the same
standard of living, the single income family benefits from the additional
untaxed home production of the home carer; and
- efficiency - as this is reduced with higher taxes on the earnings
of married women in the workforce - small increases in the marginal
tax rate faced by a married women on a low income will lead to couples
deciding that a women's time can be used more profitably producing untaxed
goods and services at home.
2.68 Professor Apps concluded that the proposed tax reforms will introduce
`impediments and inflexibility into the labour markets where none need
exist. Moreover, a fall in the female labour supply implies a decline
in the future tax base for funding the age pension'. Further, evidence
suggests that if female workforce participation falls household savings
would drop dramatically. [57]
2.69 The YWCA also expressed concern that women who choose to participate
in the paid workforce, particularly those members of single income families
with children under five, dual income families and those with children
over five, are disadvantaged by the proposed tax reform package. The YWCA
argued that the tax reforms should recognise that women mostly will continue
to choose to seek to remain in the workforce, recognising that those who
work part-time often do as much parenting and voluntary work as those
with no paid work. [58]
2.70 The YWCA also noted that the legislation proposes that, in future,
Family Tax Allowance may be either paid directly to the primary carer
or used to reduce the employed partners' tax. The YWCA stated that the
payment should be vested in the primary carer to ensure that children
are the full beneficiaries of the family subsidy.
Women forced out of the workforce: Young Women's Christian Association
Two families, both earning in total $45,000, one with one person in
full-time work, the other with a part-time worker and a full-time worker.
They both have a child under 5, and another already at school.
In Family 1 the full-time parent already receives nearly $41 parenting
allowance because she has little or no other income. Her family gains
$38.79 under the new tax regime.
Family 2 earn the same total amount, one on just $30,000, the other
on about $15,000. They have additional costs such as $60 per week gap
fees for three days of child care, an extra set of travel costs, plus
other costs such as extra costs of clothing because of work related
needs. Their family ends up with an extra $15.40 per week.
Family 2 is time and money poorer than Family 1.
The non-employed wife in Family 1 has a dilemma. If she takes a paid
job, her tax free threshold stops once she earns more than $32 per week
and she loses 30c (from the parenting allowance entitlement) on every
dollar she earns - because of the proposed parenting allowance - rather
than losing 17c (from the tax instalment deductions) on her income,
once it reaches $115.
Source, Submission No. 611, p.4, YWCA of Australia.
2.71 In Australia, women hold around 42 per cent of the jobs but they
remain clustered in industries with low pay rates, particularly in the
services industry. 76 per cent of women undertake casual or part-time
work. [59] Concerns were expressed that the
tax reform proposals would impact in such a way as to reduce employment
in areas where women make up a large proportion of the workforce. WETTANK
stated:
Particularly the areas that will lose work, according to the Chris
Murphy model or possibly the Monash model, are those which are very
high employment areas for women, such as personal services, communications,
public services, retail, entertainment, cafes and hospitality. The
areas where there are many women in low paid jobs…are also those
which are most likely, according to the models, to have been put up
to show reduced employment. [60]
2.72 The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) also
expressed concern for the employment prospects of its members in two areas
traditionally employing high numbers of women: aged care and child care.
The LHMU noted that many women working in aged care work part-time, on
average about 30 hours per week. A substantial number of women are the
main breadwinner for their families. [61] The
majority of workers in the child care industry are women and are some
of the lowest paid workers in Australia. The child care industry has already
seen the impact of government funding changes which have led to the closure
of services and loss of employment. [62] Any
diminution of services in these two areas because of the impact of the
GST and FBT changes will impact more heavily on women workers.
2.73 The YWCA also expressed concern about the flow-on effect of the
tax reforms on the community sector. In particular, the YWCA noted that
the sector is dominated by women as paid employees, as volunteers and
as recipients of services. Any adverse impact on the community sector
will have an impact on women. [63]
2.74 The special case of women in Tasmania was highlighted. TasCOSS stated
that more women in Tasmania are on lower incomes than in any other area
of Australia. TasCOSS argued that they will be disadvantaged under the
GST:
Because of their lower income, working women pay a higher percentage
of their income in work related goods and services than working men;
in Tasmania, women earn less but the cost of their goods is higher
and they will be disadvantaged more than their counterparts in other
states. [64]
2.75 As women live longer than men, there are a greater number of older
women than men. They are more likely to be dependent on pensions. [65]
The Older Women's Network pointed to a number of problems arising for
older women as a result of the tax reform package:
- the adequacy of the compensation for those on pensions;
- the increase costs of fresh food will make it more difficult for older
women on low incomes to maintain an adequate and appropriate diet;
- low income earners and pensioners spend more of their income on food,
thus the disposable income is a much reduced percentage of the total
and there is less income available for the replacement of essentials;
- older women in rural areas with no access to public transport and
are often only able to afford a second hand car which will in the future
include GST;
- the GST on non-prescription drugs will adversely affect older women;
and
- increased costs of home maintenance, particularly where there is no
man to undertake these tasks and replacing household equipment. [66]
2.76 The Older Women's Network stated:
We are also concerned that it is going to impact on a whole lot of
things that we currently take for granted…older women have a
lifelong disadvantage when coming into retirement through having been
low paid workers with broken employment, being carers of older and
younger people and being part-time and casual workers. Many of us
have never received equal pay, so that when we go into retirement
we have not got very much savings and we have not had much of an income
through life in order to accumulate a lot of quality goodies. The
savings that we might have are quickly eroded by the inadequacies
of the pension. [67]
2.77 The Sole Parents Union expressed concerns about the impact of the
GST on sole parents. Eighty eight per cent of sole parent beneficiaries
are women. Sole parents and their children are among the most disadvantaged
groups in Australian society. Many have no capacity to save and are living
beyond their means. Any increase in the cost of living will exacerbate
an already difficult situation.
2.78 Those sole parents who work rely more heavily on services than do
couple families. Any increases in costs, or decline in accessibility of
child care services, will impact adversely on a sole parent's ability
to remain in the workforce. The Sole Parents' Union also noted that sole
parents have a much higher reliance on personal services and that a tax
on these services will act `as a further disincentive for sole parents
to take up paid work, and therefore increase their reliance on social
security. This fuels the vicious circle which keeps sole parents dependent
on welfare and prevents them from breaking out of the cycle of poverty
and welfare'. [68]
Households in regional areas
2.79 A number of organisations expressed concern that the tax reform
proposals will adversely effect rural and remote communities particularly
in the areas of health, food pricing, and community services. It was also
argued that the tax reform proposals would further exacerbate the disparity
between rural and metropolitan living standards.
2.80 VCOSS noted that the number of low-income households in non-metropolitan
Australia has increased. [69] Some regions
have a concentration of low-income households and people on government
support. TasCOSS stated `Tasmania has, on a per capita basis, the highest
unemployment, the lowest average weekly wage, the oldest population and
lowest dependency ratios, the greatest number of people dependent on government
income support and the most de-centralised population'. [70]
2.81 As well as lower incomes, communities in rural and remote Australia
also face higher living costs. Higher transport costs of goods are built
into prices, services are fewer and some services that are provided to
urban dwellers by government or for-profit businesses must be provided
by the rural or remote community itself.
2.82 Submissions from rural and regional Australia expressed concern
that these factors have not been considered in the tax reform proposals.
From a Western Australian perspective it was seen that:
2.83 Many submissions highlighted the difference in the incidence of
taxes between rural and metropolitan areas, and in particular the impact
of a tax levied on the retail price of goods and services. It was argued
that, as the proposed GST will fall on the retail price of goods and services,
the impact on prices in rural and remote Australia will be greater than
in metropolitan areas. That is because prices of goods in regional areas
incorporate higher transport, handling and distribution costs as well
as the normal profit margins in the final price to consumers.
2.84 For those consumers in rural and remote Australia, these elements
of the price of a good are substantially higher than in metropolitan Australia.
Costs are higher not only because of additional transport costs but because
these costs and margins are spread over smaller volumes and so add more
to individual unit prices. For example:
- soap costs 12 per cent more in Darwin and 14 per cent more in Hobart
than in Melbourne; [72]
- TasCOSS stated that Tasmania had the highest food prices in Australia;
[73]
- the Northern Territory Health Service found that, in 1997, breads
and cereals, fruit and vegetables were, on average, 35 per cent, 28
per cent and 26 per cent more expensive respectively in Aboriginal community
stores than the supermarket in the nearest regional centre; and
- in North Queensland, a representative basket of `healthy' foods surveyed
in 1997 was found to cost $126 or 175 per cent of the Brisbane price
in 26 of 62 community stores surveyed. [74]
2.85 While it was acknowledged that diesel fuel prices will fall as a
result of the tax reform proposals, the National Rural Health Alliance
(NRHA) argued that it is unlikely that this will fully offset the price
increases in goods for rural and remote areas. Further, not all transport
is via road, with many remote areas being supplied by aircraft and barges.
The Australian Consumers Association also expressed concern that `savings
will not be passed onto consumers, especially in remote areas where there
is little competition between transport companies'. [75]
2.86 It was also argued that the CPI is based on capital city prices
and therefore the relatively larger increases in prices in rural areas
due to the GST will not be captured by the index. As VCOSS stated:
The CPI is now configured based on wage and salary earners in capital
cities highly skewed in favour of Melbourne and Sydney, I think, because
of the numbers there. We are saying here: why not have a CPI for the
non-metro or the regional areas? Why not—and they do this now,
but it is based on wage and salary earners—start to have a look
at the difference between states? For instance, why not look at the
Tasmanian impacts, because we know that there are more people on statutory
incomes in Tasmania than somewhere else… [76]
2.87 It was argued that the changes to personal income tax will be of
less benefit to rural and remote Australians: these residents earn, on
average, lower taxable incomes than city dwellers, with incomes being
some 15 per cent higher in the city. NRHA stated that `because of the
structure of the proposed income tax changes, this means that the change
in disposable incomes is higher in metropolitan areas (4.9%) than in rural
and remote areas (3.9 per cent)'. [77]
2.88 The Regional Development Council of Western Australia also noted
that the income tax regime does not take into account location and thus
has a built-in bias against regional earners. The Council argued that
zone rebates are an effective means of redressing this bias and that the
real value of zone rebates should be restored to 1993 levels. [78]
2.89 The NRHA stated that the problems for rural health can be encapsulated
in two facts: the health of rural and remote people is worse than that
of those living in urban areas; and they have access to a narrower range
of health services. The Alliance noted that the life expectancy of people
in rural areas was lower than that of metropolitan dwellers and that for
people in remote areas it was lower again. Rural and remote Australians
are more likely to stay at home than to seek hospital or nursing home
admission; more likely to seek the advice of a pharmacist, nurse or friend
than to visit a doctor and more likely to use medicines available at a
general store than those only available in pharmacies.
2.90 NRHA expressed concern that the proposed tax reform would not assist
those living in rural and remote Australia in terms of improved health
care. While it noted that there would be some cost reductions, NRHA believed
that the Government had overstated the extent of the reductions. NRHA
was also concerned that the health care exemptions `will be to the relative
disadvantage of less formal types of health care'. Of particular concern
to rural Australians will be the changes to the pharmaceutical provisions.
Many of those living in rural and remote areas have less ready access
to a pharmacy and rely on general stores for purchases. [79]
2.91 In evidence DHAC indicated that it had not undertaken any research
on how the GST administrative costs will impact on small aged care providers
in rural and remote areas. It also indicated that at this stage there
was no intention to do so. [80]
2.92 Concerns were also expressed for older women in rural and remote
areas, particularly in regard to the issues of transport and telephones.
It was noted that older women who live alone need these two services because
many suffer from isolation and loneliness. Any price rises resulting from
the impact of the GST in these areas will only exacerbate these problems
for older women.
2.93 The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) expressed concern
about the impact of the GST on the provision of services by regional councils.
ALGA noted that in rural areas local government provides a range of basic
community services such as community halls, swimming pools, library services
`that would not be there if they were not being provided by the council
and subsidised'. [81]
2.94 The GST is to be charged on services provided by local government.
However, ALGA noted:
There is real resistance in a lot of country areas that are really
doing it hard-those that have been depopulated; they are just keeping
their community together-and there is a real resistance about passing
on any increases in charges caused by a GST, and resistance is expected
from the community. So a lot of them would be looking at the possibility
of reducing services so that the charge remains the same, and others
would be looking at more subsidy through rates. But there is a real
limit to that, because the same community that would be paying through
the increased charges would also be paying the rates. [82]
The impact of the GST on Local Government is discussed in Chapter 5.
Remote Aboriginal communities
2.95 ATSIC, the Northern Land Council (NLC), NRHA and the National Aboriginal
Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), among others, argued
that the different circumstances involved in operating remote Aboriginal
communities mean that they will be uniquely affected by the impact of
the tax reform package. In particular:
- indigenous communities have low incomes - the largest source of income
is usually the Community Development Employment Projects and pensions;
- Aboriginal people spend a higher proportion of their income on food
and clothing;
- the cost of transporting goods increases with the remoteness of the
community;
- goods are delivered using a diverse range of transport including light
plane and barge;
- housing is usually provided by the community housing organisation;
- many suppliers are in a monopolistic position and so may not pass
on all cost reductions; and
- economic enterprises in remote communities often include arts and
craft production and tourism enterprises, both of which will be taxed
under the GST. [83]
2.96 ATSIC concluded that `the implication of these characteristics is
that Indigenous people in rural and remote communities are possibly the
most disadvantaged in Australian society and are least able to adjust
to any additional costs and disincentives imposed on them'. [84]
2.97 The NLC highlighted the impact of the GST on goods and quoted a
study by Australian Economic Consultants which had concluded that the
Indigenous communities will pay GST on a final price of goods and services
which is many times higher than for comparable products elsewhere in Australia.
The NLC further stated that `given that community people have a consumption
pattern which is intense in highly taxed items (relative to the pre-GST
state) and they live in very remote and high cost places, it would be
surprising if they will not become the most heavily GST taxed group in
the nation, measured by the proportion of their incomes paid in GST'.
[85]
2.98 A study commissioned by ATSIC supported the view that Indigenous
households spend more on food (39.3 per cent) compared to low income non-Indigenous
households (24 per cent). For large Indigenous households this increases
to 54 per cent, reflecting the higher costs of food due to transport costs,
and in some instances, that the supplier is in a monopolistic position.
[86]
2.99 The NLC concluded `this will impact adversely on the standards of
living of Indigenous communities by leaving less of their incomes available
for other goods and services after spending on food, or by reducing food
purchases'. For example, a basket of vegetables costing $100 in a capital
city currently costs $212 in the East Arnhem district. To add GST onto
this base may have serious nutrition and health implications. A further
matter noted was that the elimination of WST and replacement with the
GST will impact on the relative price of foodstuffs. As noted earlier,
processed food such as soft drink, biscuits and sweets will become cheaper
while fresh foods such as fruit and vegetables will become more expensive.
This will only add to health and nutrition problems in Indigenous communities.
2.100 NACCHO stated `if there is to be some sort of commitment to changing
the lifestyle and the sickness rates out there, then they must seriously
consider subsidising getting those sorts of good foods out to these places'.
[87]
2.101 Housing was another area of concern. The NLC submitted that with
the GST the costs of housing will rise and this will result in less housing
being built in Indigenous communities. The housing backlog is already
extensive with cascading effects on health, education, employment, etc.
[88] See further discussion in Chapter 4.
2.102 The NLC expressed concern that the Government's proposed compensation
measures would not adequately address the effects of the GST on remote
Indigenous communities. The Council also noted that it was unaware of
any detailed modelling of the effects of the GST and of the proposed offsetting
measures on remote Indigenous communities.
2.103 NACCHO expressed concern about the administrative impact of the
GST on Aboriginal health services:
The problem that we see from the point of view of our communities
and organisations is the cost that will be imposed on services alone
in getting that refund; there is the administration burden alone,
particularly when taking into consideration the food area. Our services
depend on other people supplying supplies to us—buildings, whatever—out
there in these remote areas. So that cost will impact there. For an
organisation to be able to go and seek the refund, get the money back,
we just cannot imagine the sort of burden that the cost of the associated
administration will cause; to get people to track it back is another
cost. [89]
2.104 NACCHO went on to state that the administrative structure of Aboriginal
medical services are underresourced, that `the resources will not stretch
any further' and:
[Aboriginal Medical Services] already have large administrative burdens.
This is just one more thing to add on to very large and complex bureaucratic
tasks that they already have in terms of not just their financial
management but their health service management, patient records et
cetera. And while you make it sound very simple to add up your totals
and calculate one-eleventh, we are quite sure that there is going
to be a lot more to it than that in terms of paperwork. We have not
come across any government imposed program that does not require a
lot of paperwork and a lot of administrative effort. We think that
something as broad as a GST is likely to do so. So what we are actually
asking for in this submission is for that to be taken into account.
It is going to require staff training. It is going to require ongoing
administrative staffing levels to cope with these demands, and it
is just one more task for already stretched health services. [90]
2.105 Another area of concern was the changes to the FBT arrangements.
NACCHO indicated that FBT arrangements were used to attract doctors and
people to remote health services:
Considering that even with those packages some of our services in
remote areas cannot attract doctors and people to them now, we believe
that there will be an impact again even with just trying to retain
staff. We have had dealings with our doctors and, with the so-called
rural incentive programs that are put around and floated around, this
will now take the edge off all these so-called doctor programs that
are supposed to be benefiting our mob out there. [91]
Conclusions
2.106 The Committee concludes that the Government's claim that no households
are made worse off is wrong. In fact, evidence before the Committee shows
that the tax package will reduce the living standards of many low and
middle income households. The compensation is not adequate. It is based
on incorrect assumptions. It fails to take into account the different
spending and saving patterns of low income households, the different housing
costs and the different impacts on households in regional Australia. The
Government has only allowed an extra 30c a week for the GST costs per
child.
2.107 The Government has grossly overestimated the reduction in prices
from the removal of the WST and other State indirect taxes, at least in
the short-term.
2.108 The Government price watchdog, the ACCC, is unlikely to have the
resources to guarantee protection for low income expenditure.
2.109 The Committee concludes that the compensation package is inadequate
to begin with and will be eroded over time, and that living standards
of low income and disadvantaged Australians will deteriorate.
Footnotes
[1] Tax Reform: not a new tax, a new tax
system, Chapter 5.
[2] Submission No.68, pp.2-3 (ACOSS); Submission
No.848, pp.14-15 (Brotherhood of St Laurence).
[3] Submission No.68, pp.3, 6-7 (ACOSS). See
also Submission No.848, pp.13-14 (BSL); Submission No.300, pp.13-14 (St
Vincent de Paul Society).
[4] Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System,
First Report, February 1999, p.15.
[5] Select Committee, First Report, p.17.
[6] Submission No.68, p.3 (ACOSS).
[7] Submission No.795, p.5 (COTA).
[8] Submission No.795, p.6 (COTA). The figures
are based on HES data. See also Submission No.928, pp.16-23 (ACA).
[9] Submission No.300, pp.14, 22 (St Vincent
de Paul Society).
[10] Submission No.928, p.22 (ACA). See also
Submission No.795, p.8 (COTA).
[11] Submission No.79, p.1 (Professor McDonald).
[12] Submission No.79, pp.1-2 (Professor McDonald).
[13] Submission No.79, p.4 (Professor McDonald).
[14] Submission No.79, p.5 (Professor McDonald).
[15] Committee Hansard, 10.2.99, p.494
(ACOSS).
[16] Submission No.300, p.31 (St Vincent de
Paul Society). See also Submission No.783, pp.9-12 (Council for Homeless
Persons Australia); Submission No.1006, p.2 (Federation of Ethnic Communities'
Councils of Australia); Submission No.483, pp.1-2 (Adelaide Justice Coalition);
Submission No.405, pp.1-4 (Adelaide Day Centre for Homeless Persons).
[17] Submission No.640, p.1 (NCOSS).
[18] Submission No.872A, p.33 (TasCOSS).
[19] Submission No.1034, p.14 (ACSWC).
[20] Submission No.1034, p.14 (ACSWC).
[21] Submission No.1034, p.29 (ACSWC).
[22] Submission No.624, p.4 (Anglicare Australia).
[23] Submission No.364, p.3 (ACA).
[24] Submission No.604, p.3 (VCOSS).
[25] Submission No.640, p.1 (NCOSS).
[26] Submission No.872A, p.5 (TasCOSS).
[27] Submission No.922, p.2 (SACOSS).
[28] Submission No.801, p.v (ATSIC).
[29] Submission No.795, p.12 (COTA). See also
Submission No.850, pp.11-17 (CPSA/APSF); Submission No.734, p.5 (NSA);
Submission No.624, p.6 (Anglicare Australia).
[30] Submission No.734, p.4 (NSA). See also
Submission No.861, p.1 (Older Women's Network); Submission No.239, p.2
(ARPA Over 50s Association); Submission No.1304, p.2 (Goldfields Age Pensioners
Association).
[31] Submission No.795, p.17 (COTA).
[32] Submission No.106, p.3 (APSL).
[33] Submission No.624, p.6 (Anglicare Australia).
[34] Submission No.795, p.16 (COTA). See also
Submission No.850, pp.10-13 (CPSA/APSF); Submission No.624, p.6 (Anglicare
Australia); Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, pp.240-41 (Carers Association).
[35] Submission No.624, p.6 (Anglicare Australia).
See also Submission No.269, p.1 (Retired Union Members' Association of
SA).
[36] Tax Reform Report, p.56.
[37] Submission No.850, p.12 (CPSA/APSF). See
also Submission No.795, p.13 (COTA).
[38] Submission No.850, p.13 (CPSA/APSF).
[39] Committee Hansard, 2.2.99, pp.83-84
(DFaCS).
[40] DFaCS, Additional Information, 28.2.99,
p.3.
[41] Submission No.795, p.24 (COTA); Submission
No.734, p.6 (NSA); Submission No.305, p.1 (Association of Independent
Retirees).
[42] Submission No.795, p.15 (COTA).
[43] Submission No.734, p.6 (NSA).
[44] See, for example, Submission Nos.25, 32,
42, 46, 51-52, 54, 72, 81, 108, 128, 134, 151, 165-66, 211, 245-247, 271,
382, 486, 576.
[45] Select Committee Hansard, 11.2.99,
pp.849, 853 (ACCC).
[46] Submission No.928 (ACA), p.21 and Appendix
1, p.37.
[47] For example Submission No.227 (Ms Rosemary
Stanton), pp.1-2 and Committee Hansard, 12.3.99, pp.1223-26; Submission
No.928 (ACA), p.22; Submission No.895 (PHAA), p.5; Submission No.796 (DAA),
p.1; Submission No.655 (The Smith Family), p.5.
[48] Submission No.795 (COTA), pp.8-9; Submission
No.850 (CPSA/APSF), p.18.
[49] Submission No.872A (TasCOSS), pp.27-31;
Submission No.237 (Anglicare Tasmania), pp.1-2.
[50] Submission No.928, p.24 (ACA).
[51] Submission No.801 (ATSIC), pp.6-9.
[52] ABS Survey referred to in Submission No.796
(Dietitians Association of Australia), p.2; Ms Rosemary Stanton argued
similarly, see Committee Hansard, 12.3.99, pp.1229-30.
[53] Submission No.624 (Anglicare Australia),
p.5; Submission No.928 (ACA), p.18 argued similarly.
[54] Submission No.796 (DAA), p.2.
[55] Submission No.74, pp.5-6 (Professor Patricia
Apps).
[56] Submission No.1007, p.12 (Women's Economic
Think Tank).
[57] Submission No.74, p.6 (Professor Patricia
Apps).
[58] Submission No.611, p.4 (YWCA of Australia).
[59] Submission No.1007, p.8 (Women's Economic
Think Tank).
[60] Committee Hansard, 23.2.99, p.860.
[61] Committee Hansard, 23.2.99, p.1066.
[62] Issues relating to child care workers
and changes in the child care industry are discussed in the Committee's
Report on Child Care Funding, December 1998.
[63] Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, p.194.
[64] Submission No.872, p,4 (TasCOSS).
[65] Submission No.861, p.1 (Older Women's
Network).
[66] Submission No.861 (Older Women's Network).
[67] Committee Hansard, 10.2.99, p.535.
[68] Submission No.1048, p.1 (Sole Parents'
Union).
[69] Submission No.604, p.8 (VCOSS).
[70] Submission No.872, p.3 (TasCOSS).
[71] Submission No.1042, p.3 (Regional Development
Council of Western Australia).
[72] Submission No.732, p.14 (National Rural
Health Alliance); Submission No.1042, p.14 (Regional Development Council
of Western Australia).
[73] Submission No.872, p.3 (TasCOSS).
[74] Submission No.928, p.24 (Australian Consumers
Association).
[75] Submission No.928, p.24 (Australian Consumers
Association)
[76] Committee Hansard, 11.2.99, p.714
(VCOSS).
[77] Submission No.732, p.15 (National Rural
Health Alliance).
[78] Submission No.1042, p.4 (Regional Development
Council of Western Australia).
[79] Submission No.732, p.4 (National Rural
Health Alliance).
[80] Committee Hansard, 2.2.99, p.48.
[81] Committee Hansard, 12.3.99, p.1207.
[82] Committee Hansard, 12.3.99, p.1208.
[83] Submission No.732, p.21 (National Rural
Health Alliance); Submission No.801, p.2 (ATSIC) Submission No.1387, p.3
(Northern Land Council); Submission No.510, pp.1-2.
[84] Submission No.801, p.4 (ATSIC).
[85] Submission No. 1387, p.4 (The Northern
Land Council).
[86] Submission No.801, p.6 (ATSIC)
[87] Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, p.191.
[88] Submission No.1387, p.6 (The Northern
Land Council). See also Submission No.801, p.10 (ATSIC).
[89] Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, pp.177-78.
[90] Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, p.183.
[91] Committee Hansard, 3.2.99, p.178.