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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 157 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

One of the things members have to ask themselves is: Why in heaven's name would the Government not want to do a 1997 valuation? As it does not affect our revenue in any way whatsoever - it has no effect at all on revenue to the Government - why would we decide not to do it? It is actually a very interesting question. There is no ideology, no political agenda. How could there be a political agenda on not doing a valuation? The reason was quite definitely that, to include a 1997 valuation, we could not have put on the table in December the information we put in the exposure draft. We believe strongly that everyone should have all the information at their disposal when they comment on the rates system or, alternatively, debate it, as we will do possibly tomorrow.

Under the proposed system, one year valuation would have a very small impact on individual rates bills across the board, as there are other components at work, such as the fixed charge, the threshold, and, most importantly, the three-year rolling average. Mr Whitecross indicated that it was not a fair system unless you were using "up-to-date valuations". We are not using up-to-date valuations anyway; we are using three-year rolling averages. So, if Mr Whitecross stood by the comments he categorically made just a few minutes ago - that only up-to-date valuations produce a fair rating system - he would have to oppose a three-year rolling average. Yet a three-year rolling average is what his own party put forward before the last election - something that obviously we support totally.

Under a one-off transition arrangement, the 1997 valuation will have little or no effect on the new system. The only thing it will do is cost taxpayers about $400,000. There will be absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer, to the community, and no real changes in the rates bill people get, except that there could be some parts of Canberra that end up with a higher increase than they would have got before, and people who would potentially get a lower rate, because it is spread further, will get very little change whatsoever. So there will be none of that; just a bill to the ratepayer, to the taxpayer, of $400,000 for absolutely no benefit. Interestingly, $400,000 may not seem a lot to Mr Whitecross; but for this Government, in the current financial situation, $400,000 is a lot of buses, a lot of health services, a lot of community health services - - -

Mr Whitecross: It is one bus, actually.

Mr Berry: It is only one futsal field.

MRS CARNELL: Not routes, not the sorts of things we could provide every day. It is not just pretend, even if it is one bus. Mr Whitecross says it is one bus. A bus, a futsal stadium, a health service, any of the things we can buy with $400,000, all come as a benefit to the community. One thing that does not come as a benefit to the community is doing a valuation for 1997 that achieves absolutely nothing.

Mr Whitecross: According to you.

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