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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 155 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Whitecross indicated that somehow we were not telling anybody that we were not going to include 1997 valuations. If we were not going to tell anyone, why would I have tabled the papers in the Assembly in December?

Mr Humphries: Just between us.

MRS CARNELL: Just between us, I will give everybody the papers to show how the model works, which makes it very clear that there are no 1997 valuations. I understand that the people who briefed various members of the Assembly also made it very clear. This is a very interesting and unusual way to try to hide something. This again is one of Mr Whitecross's unusual approaches to issues in this place.

Members of the Assembly will be aware that the system does not change the total amount of revenue the Government will receive in general rates and that this Government has made a commitment to restrict the increase in the amount of revenue to a CPI increase. What we have here is a situation where Mr Whitecross indicated in newspapers that somehow the Government was going to get a windfall here, that somehow the Government was going to end up with more money, or alternatively, that the people of Canberra, if we did a 1997 valuation, would end up paying less. I think he said it would be $1m less if we went down the 1997 valuation approach.

Mr Whitecross: Using your figures.

MRS CARNELL: No, those are not my figures; those are the figures quoted by you in various newspaper articles. Mr Whitecross would know very well that the total amount of money the ACT Government will get in rates will be last year's amount plus the CPI. The 1997-98 CPI estimate has been revised since the preparation of the exposure draft; therefore the rating factor will be adjusted to reflect the revised revenue target the final Bill will have in it when it is introduced into the Assembly.

Mr Whitecross: Up or down?

MRS CARNELL: Down, of course. Did you not know that the inflation rate figure was down, Mr Whitecross? It is very tragic, really.

Mr Whitecross also said that the lack of a revaluation meant that the rates burden would be spread unfairly across Canberra. He would like to see ratepayers whose rates were already going down get a bigger reduction, which would of course mean that other ratepayers would end up with significantly higher increases. I must admit that I find that notion of fair very unusual. To hit what is, as Mr Whitecross would know, a fairly small number of Canberrans with a very large increase is exactly what we were trying to overcome by using a rating system that did not end up achieving significant increases or significant decreases. We believe that a fair rating system is one that eliminates the very large increases or reductions. Obviously, we have a very different view of what "fair" means. If the inclusion of the 1997 property values would cause some rates bills to reduce, obviously it would mean that others would have to increase. The reductions Mr Whitecross tried to sell to the community are false, and he is trying to use a minor issue to score some political points rather than focus on the issue as a whole, on the whole proposal.

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