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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 415 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

However, after careful consideration, we believe that this approach would be irresponsible. If we are going to maintain confidence in the rating system and this rating system is based substantially on unimproved valuations, then annual valuations are an important part of the administration of the system. There may be administrative costs associated with this; but that, unfortunately, is a burden that the Government has to bear. It is a smaller short-term cost than ending up with a rating system that does not have the confidence of ratepayers.

During the by-election, many constituents rang and actually spoke to me of their concern about the valuation that was occurring, because they did see such a great difference between the two - 1994 and 1997. While I understand absolutely that it would not have a huge overall impact on individual people, it is really very important that the community believes in the integrity of how the rating system is working. That is why we supported the Labor Party in that debate.

Three-year rolling averages are something we agree with. I will not repeat the arguments that have already been put forward in favour of this by other members. The fixed charge of $220 is of some concern to the Greens, although this is offset to some degree by a rate-free threshold. On the issue of the threshold, whatever final level of threshold we come up with, we believe that it should probably be indexed according to the CPI.

We understand the Government's arguments about the cost of providing the basic level of municipal services. However, as I said earlier, the Greens believe that other social, economic and even environmental policy objectives can be pursued through our rating system. That is why we believe that the $220 is too high as a fixed charge. We believe, instead, that charging a fixed rate to cover the garbage collection cost alone may be an alternative. This could have a number of advantages. It would send a very strong message that, rather than paying for a bundle of services which are not very clearly defined, households would be made aware of the costs of garbage collection, currently around $12m a year in the ACT. With around 108,000 households and a little over 4,000 commercial properties, a garbage charge could be around $100 to $120.

We also think the Government could explore some sort of scheme to offer financial incentives to households who minimise waste. Rates may not be the most appropriate vehicle, but I think it is worth exploring the options. Maroochy Council, for example, has a computer chip installed in recycling bins so that households who put out their recycling bins more than 20 times a year are given a $20 concession on their rates. This is an example only of what could be done. Maybe it would be better if it were for putting bins out under 20 times a year. Another suggestion is the installation of a non-refillable insert to reduce the volume of the garbage bin. We would be happy to pursue these ideas in more informal discussions, if the Government were interested.

The other area of concern for the Greens was in relation to the 85 : 15 ratio for residential and commercial properties. We commend the Government for acknowledging that there has been a drift towards residential properties bearing a greater proportion of the rates burden over recent years and trying to do something about it. The current balance is about 86 : 14. I would be interested to hear how the Government came up with 85 : 15 as a ratio. Why not 80 : 20, if that is what we have been drifting away from?

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