Page 2051 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is, of course, an administrative cost in administering the instalment program. At the moment, and I do not intend to change this in the foreseeable future, the incentive for people to pay up front - that is, to reduce their liability up front - is that they will not incur the necessary surcharge that instalment payments involve.
Madam Speaker, I would like to make just a couple of other general points, particularly about the land tax matter. Whilst members have not raised the issue, I think there are some points that need to be made. First of all, I think members ought to understand that the sliding scale of land tax is a marginal taxing scheme. Whilst for properties with an unimproved value of $100,000 or less we propose that the tax remain at one per cent - and I might say that about 93 per cent of residential properties and also a considerable proportion of commercial properties fall into that category - if values go over $100,000 it does not mean that properties immediately spring totally into the 1.25 per cent bracket. Mr Kaine's comments indicated that he might have felt that that was the case. I am not sure whether that is what he meant. Madam Speaker, what it does mean is that the first $100,000 worth of unimproved value is charged one per cent. Only the proportion that is over $100,000 is charged the higher rate. So it is a marginal scheme, and I think that is the correct way to go. It has a lesser impact than you might at first think.
Madam Speaker, I also draw members' attention to the fact that unimproved values of commercial properties have actually decreased over the past few years. That has been the pattern throughout the country as the recession has affected those values. I think that it is therefore entirely reasonable to balance the burden of rates and land tax by looking at a sliding scale of land tax for commercial interests. I have asked my Treasury people to do some calculations for me on the rates for which the major shopping centres have been liable in the past few years. Whilst I cannot, of course, refer to individual businesses or individual organisations, I can assure members that between 1991 and the proposed arrangements for 1993-94 there has been an averaging out of the combined rates and land tax charges at Canberra's four major shopping centres. The average result is actually a decline of 1.3 per cent in their liability. There has been an average decline of 1.3 per cent across the four of them.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .