Page 1284 - Week 05 - Thursday, 25 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
definitional matter and the backdating of that subclause is largely for cosmetic and convenience reasons, so that one definition takes over shortly before the demise of the previous one. I think that it does not have any real effect; it is really just tidying up.
There is also the question of whether anybody would be disadvantaged by the backdating of the date of effect of subclause 4(1), and the answer to that is no; nobody will be disadvantaged. It simply picks up the definition of "city area" which was frozen in time as a result of the repeal of the City Area Leases Act. It certainly does not alter the boundaries and no land is differently rated as a consequence of the insertion of the new definition. I say that just to respond to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which, as usual, has made an extremely thorough scrutiny of this particular Bill in a very short time.
I would like to comment, finally, Madam Speaker, that in looking at the Rates and Land Tax (Amendment) Bill members should be aware that there is some government assistance available to people who might have difficulty in meeting rates and land tax charges. I think this is important as some areas, as Ms Szuty pointed out, have quite large increases in line with the increase in the unimproved value of their land. The assistance that is provided is by way of three separate strategies: Firstly, there are pensioner rebates; secondly, there is also a scheme for the deferment of rates; and, thirdly, of course, there are hardship rebates as well. So the Government does provide some assistance to people who are genuinely in difficulty and, by the same token, can negotiate for time payment arrangements on a case by case basis. I think it is important to point out that where people find themselves in that situation they should contact the ACT Revenue Office as quickly as they can and make the arrangements that are necessary.
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond quickly to Mr Stevenson's remarks and say that, had he been in Canberra a bit longer and perhaps had he taken a more active role in some of the business of the Assembly, he would know that we have a rates Bill every year. I do not think this would be a surprise to the Canberra community, and certainly not to the property owners of Canberra. It is the usual thing with revenue Bills to introduce them and get them through very quickly so that there is no speculation, so that nobody is able to take undue advantage of a revenue measure. While I take Mr Stevenson's general point about consultation and I certainly take his point about the community having the right to be involved in decisions which affect them, I think that in this case the community would expect to be getting the rates Bill this year and would expect it to be based upon the unimproved value of their land. Were they to be asked what they thought ought to be in the rates Bill, perhaps the results may not be terribly helpful.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .