Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

What really gets my goat is that you both stood here today playing base politics, rather than really being interested in your public, so that you could get stuff into your newspapers rather than trying to deal with the matter. Let's tell the truth. The truth is the member for Richmond should have been saying that this is not a decision of government but that we all, on both sides of this chamber, can and should express the concerns of our electorates and we should ensure that the ATO is given that information—that everybody puts forward the information.

Let's get to the points. First and foremost, this is a draft ruling. It now behoves all of us to ensure that the public puts forward the concerns that we are echoing here, and I support the member for Shortland for bringing this forward. Secondly, at the moment there are two rulings. There is a ruling that applies that the mobile home parks can use input tax credits. In fact, I think you will find that is where this is coming from: potential investors who want to be able to use input credits. Therefore, it is to their benefit and it is to the detriment of the personnel who live there. Also, they do pay GST at the moment. It is at 5.5 per cent. It is a concessional rate, which means that when that is applied it should actually be equal. In other words, the parks pay it and they have their offsets. It is technical.

The bottom line from my perspective is this. This is a very important part of the housing mix in Australia today, and it is growing—not only for pensioners but also as a first homeowners option. What we want to do is give people certainty. The reality is that the ATO is totally separate from government. I am sure that the learned members opposite would have to agree with that. They had a job to do; they have done it. They have made some mistakes in their ruling and in saying that there has been considerable change to the mobile home circumstances. That is not true. Maybe they misinterpreted it back in 2000. That is possible. What we are saying is that, in the event that they come to the conclusion that mobile home estates are not part of commercial residential premises, it is my belief that—to protect the people that are in that situation and those who are looking at it as a housing option, whether they be first homeowners, retirees or those who are just opting for this type of housing—no additional impost should be put on them.

I am not going to stand here and play politics. All of us should be putting our constituent matters first. When a government is to blame, they should put up their hand and say, 'I did it.' When they put in a carbon tax, they should say, 'I did it.' Admit it and say that was a deliberate choice. This is a decision of the ATO. It is a draft ruling. It is up to us to mobilise those who stand to lose by it to say that this is wrong. Let's make sure that the ruling that was agreed before the introduction of the tax on 1 July 2000 and the amendments that were made, are honoured.

This is not the first, and it will not be the last, time that draft rulings will come forward that we will disagree with. For goodness sake—if you have learnt nothing from the last six years, learn that base, partisan politics is not what the public want. Stand up here and argue the case on behalf of the constituents that you represent, but do not start throwing around blame like confetti because it looks good in your local paper. It belittles the people that are doing it, it belittles this chamber and it does nothing to progress the debate. I support the motion. I will support it in government, and I will ask my constituents to ensure that they have an input to the ATO on this important issue.

See this speech in context