Page 2336 - Week 08 - Friday, 21 June 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (7.35), in reply: I thank members for their support for these Bills and for their comments, which are extremely useful to me in looking at the question of rates legislation. The very strange thing is that Mr Stevenson's first comment was exactly my first comment when I looked at the proposed rates Bills. Mr Stevenson wanted to know what was in the rest of the budget package, and I think that is a fair enough question when you are looking at raising taxes in one particular area. I had hoped that the paper that I put to the Assembly this afternoon on the outcome of the Premiers Conference and the outlook for the ACT budget might have put some of those questions into perspective for Mr Stevenson. Perhaps if he has a closer look at that, that might well be the case.
Mr Speaker, members have made the point that some ratepayers will be paying increases greater than the CPI increase of 4 per cent, and that is undoubtedly the case. Some of them will be paying much less, of course. In those areas where the increased valuation is less than the average, they will be paying less rates.
I think it is wise to bear in mind, first of all, that there are quite significant differences within suburbs, and the figures that we have been given by way of illustration are just average suburban figures. From house to house, street to street, there could be quite a variation. The other point is that ratepayers, of course, have a right to appeal against their valuation. That is a very important right for them. If they feel that their valuation is way out of kilter, they do have that right, and every time there is a revaluation significant numbers of ratepayers take advantage of that appeal right.
Mr Collaery canvassed some very broad issues - well outside the scope of the rates Bills, in fact. But I believe that it is very useful to have his comments on the record in the context of the broader budget. I will certainly be having a much closer look at what he said.
In conclusion, I thank members for their support. It is never an easy task to have to increase a cost to ordinary householders and it is certainly not one that I relish; but in the Bills that we have before us today I have certainly sought to make that increase as small as possible, just to cover the CPI, and also as equitable as possible, and I have done that by implementing that revaluation. Where people's properties are worth significantly more, that is reflected, and I think that is the equitable solution.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bills agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .