Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2041 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

She knows that everybody else is wrong. She knows that the previous Government was wrong. She knows that the previous Government's revised version was wrong. She knows that her own consultants are wrong.

Ms Follett: Lucinda was wrong.

MR WHITECROSS: Yes, Lucinda was wrong. She knows that everyone was wrong, but what she does not know is who is right. She cannot come up with a solution to this problem. This Assembly and this community are entitled to a solution to this problem. They are entitled to a rates system which will stand into the future. It is not good enough, as Mrs Carnell has proposed to this Assembly today, to have an interim rates system for three years because Mrs Carnell cannot figure out what to do about this problem. She must come back next year with a solution to this problem. That is why we are moving this amendment today.

MS HORODNY (11.08): The Greens agree with other members that there are a number of deficiencies in the formula that Mrs Carnell has chosen, and we think it is time that the Government sorted out an appropriate rating system for the ACT. This is the second year that rates have been capped to CPI, supposedly as a stop-gap measure. Last year we were told that capping rates to CPI was necessary while the review of the rating system was carried out, but this Bill allows this capping to go on for a further two financial years. Surely it cannot take two whole years for the Government to analyse the rates review. They have already had the report for a couple of months.

If we are going to have a system where rates are linked to improved capital values, then we should stick to that system, not go for capping rates to CPI for three years running. Mrs Carnell talked about equity, but using 1994 unimproved land values is inequitable in many ways, as people whose property values have gone down will be disadvantaged. The past two rate reviews strongly recommended that land values be determined annually. It is a big mistake not to keep the valuations up to date. We are going to get more people feeling antagonistic over local taxes if there is no consistency in the system and if there are sudden leaps because valuations are not undertaken regularly.

We agree that many of the recommendations of the review are inequitable, but we think we should look at separating out the garbage component of rates in a way that is not too regressive. Mr Speaker, garbage collection costs us over $9m a year, and this does not even take into account the long-term costs of landfill. With a stated strategy of having no waste to landfill by 2010, it would be appropriate to build some incentives in to encourage households to reduce waste. We could provide some financial incentives to minimise waste as part of a garbage charge - a non-refillable insert, for example. We also think that the subsidies to embassies could be removed immediately. Mr Speaker, it is time the Government put in place an equitable, transparent and efficient rating system for the ACT, and we should not be forced to wait another two years for this.

MR MOORE (11.10): Mr Speaker, I indicated in the in-principle debate that I would be supporting this amendment. One thing that really comes through in this piece of legislation is the cowardice of the Government in this particular issue. As I mentioned in the in-principle debate, they are very conscious of the Canberra Ratepayers Association and the push for people to do something about rates.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .