Page 2124 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: The standing order refers to there being no question before the Assembly and says that such matters may not be debated. But it has to be a matter of a personal nature. This is a matter of a past debate.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am afraid that I agree with Mr Berry. It is a matter of a past debate.
MRS CARNELL: It is not. You cannot do that.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry; but it is.
RATES AND LAND RENT (RELIEF) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 14 June 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (7.27): In debating the previous Bill, both sides of the house recognised that there can be a perception of inequity and unfairness in the way that rates and land tax are assessed. Some people feel aggrieved that their rates and land tax have gone up considerably and they do not believe that that is fair. This Bill is the means by which that unfairness can be mitigated to some degree for those who find difficulty in paying the rates and land tax that are levied against them. It can be mitigated in two ways. First of all, some people can claim a concession under certain circumstances. The second avenue open to them is to obtain a deferment of payment.
The amendments essentially do three things. They extend to a new class of people the ability to seek either a concession or a deferment, and that new class of people is essentially people over 60 years of age who fall into certain categories and whose income is therefore low. That seems to me to be an equitable thing. The Liberal Party has no objection to it. The second thing the Bill does is to allow people who are eligible, who previously could exercise only one option or the other - they could either get a concession and get a rebate or seek a deferment - to do both. There did seem to be an inequity in that somebody who could afford to get the concession and then pay the remainder up front had an advantage over those who were unable to pay the remainder of the bill up front. This Bill rectifies that inequity. The Liberal Party sees that as being a reasonable thing to do and supports it.
The third thing this Bill does, in consequence of the change in the method of levying charges for water and sewerage, is to make an adjustment for those people who formerly were entitled to a concession in respect of the base charge. The change in the rate of levying would have put them at a disadvantage under the new system relative to what they had under the old system. This Bill proposes that they be able to obtain a rebate of 65 per cent of the base charge instead of the previous 50 per cent. That simply puts them back to the level they were on before. It does not give them any particular advantage compared to where they were before, but it retains their status. Indeed, somebody on the first floor did a calculation that showed that, whereas somebody under the old system would pay $240 for their water and sewerage, under this system they will pay $238.35.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .