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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 410 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The committee also reports that, once again, guidelines for the preparation of disallowable instruments have not been followed, in this case in relation to the determination of fees for the disposal of garbage at ACT Government landfills. It is not the first time that the need to observe the guidelines has been raised. No doubt, reminders will not be necessary in the future. This report also comments on other matters, and I am sure that members will attend to them. In fact, it comments on some six Bills, 53 pieces of subordinate legislation and one Government response to the committee.

Debate resumed from 5 December 1996, on motion by Mrs Carnell:

That the Assembly takes note of the papers.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (3.43): Mr Speaker, Labor is generally in support of the proposed new rating system as described in the exposure draft, although we have a number of concerns, which I wish to raise. I also have a number of comments to make in relation to the way this issue has been handled over the last two years, which are important to where we now are in relation to this matter.

Mr Speaker, in 1995, Mrs Carnell made a great deal of noise about the rating system in the ACT.

Mr Berry: She does that every year.

MR WHITECROSS: Yes. Indeed, she and her colleagues thought that when they got to occupy the government benches a new and better rating system would just fall into their laps. When she was in opposition Mrs Carnell thought that everything was going to be easy; but when she got into government she realised that finding solutions to many things is much more difficult than criticising the previous system. Actually delivering on promises made in an election campaign can be difficult. Indeed, actually complying with Territory laws appears to be difficult for Mrs Carnell, as we discovered recently in relation to the 1997 valuations.

Mr Speaker, in 1995, the Chief Minister capped rates to the CPI, using the 1994 valuations for one year while she undertook a review. It should be noted that, before the 1995 election, Labor had already come up with a proposal for a new rating system using three-year rolling averages to smooth out some of the fluctuations up and down which had occurred under the previous rating system using single year values. But, rather than adopting the policy of the Labor Party, she capped rates using 1994 values while she undertook another review.

This review occurred, but with, in the opinion of the Labor Party, severely flawed terms of reference. The terms of reference were flawed, because the Government did not know what it was looking for. It had no ideas of its own about what it wanted out of the rating system. So, it sent the consultants off to do the work with no real guidelines.

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