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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 162 ..

Mr Whitecross (continuing):

Mr Speaker, she said in her remarks that the Assembly never told her to do 1997 valuations. Mrs Carnell, it is called "the law". It is called "an Act of parliament". When you pass an Act of parliament the government is expected to comply with the Act of parliament. You say that the Assembly did not tell you to do the valuations. Let us put aside for one moment the Act of parliament. We did tell you, Mrs Carnell. We moved an amendment which explicitly excluded 1997 from the definition of "special relevant date". You cannot say that the Assembly did not tell you to do 1997 valuations. There was an Act of parliament which said that you had to do them. So, do not mislead people by saying that 1997 valuations were not required. The Act of parliament required them.

Mrs Carnell went on to make the disingenuous suggestion that somehow supporting up-to-date valuations is inconsistent with three-year rolling averages. Of course, it is not. I support three-year rolling averages. It was, after all, a Labor Party proposal. But, Mr Speaker, I support using the most recent three years. Mrs Carnell seems to support using any three years which get her the answer she wants. I support using the most recent three years, Mr Speaker, and that is what this motion will achieve.

Mrs Carnell, fascinatingly, in the course of the debate, described her decision not to use 1997 valuations as "a proposal" and said that, if we rejected the exposure draft, then, of course, she would have to go back and do the 1997 valuations. Yet now she comes into this place and says, "It is too late. We cannot do that". The fact is, Mr Speaker, that she never had any intention of doing 1997 valuations, and she hoped that she would sneak it past us all without our finding out. But, Mr Speaker, it was not a proposal, because she never referred to it. She never came in and said, "Members will be interested to note that I have based my valuations on 1994, 1995 and 1996. I have deliberately decided not to get the 1997 valuations because I am trying to smooth the transition to the new arrangements". She did not say that.

Mrs Carnell: It is in the exposure draft.

MR WHITECROSS: Mrs Carnell, open and consultative government means that, when you make a decision, you tell people about it so that they can make a decision as to whether they agree with you or not.

Mrs Carnell: We did.

MR WHITECROSS: You did not. So, Mr Speaker, here we have a situation where they have tried to put one past the Assembly. After having created a monster in the last two years by manipulating the system, they are trying to manipulate the system again. Mr Speaker, the other weak argument being put by the Government is that, if the Assembly insists on the same thing we insisted on in June last year - that is, 1997 valuations - then we will not be able to tell people what their rates are until June. Mr Speaker, in every other year that I can think of, the Rates and Land Tax Bill has been tabled in the Assembly and voted on in June, and it is not until June that any of the householders out there actually know what their rates are going to be.

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