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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 417 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

So, in the initial instance, there are major differences between the two. However, the notion of a poll tax, in Britain, brought such odium that Mrs Thatcher finally backed away from it. So, there is some advantage for those who are not trying to debate this sensibly but who are trying to get a public campaign going to say that it is just a poll tax. It is not.

In fact, what I believe the Chief Minister has found here is a method between what is, on the one hand, a poll tax and what is, on the other hand, a fair and equitable system of ensuring that ordinary people pay their fair share for services that are delivered. So, we have now separated services that are delivered, and that is at about a $220 level, and a taxation system that is, I suppose, in some ways, associated with a wealth tax. It is a tax on a non-productive enterprise, a tax on property valuation, and an increase in that property valuation. Both of those things, I think, make very good sense.

Mr Speaker, I think that this is all about finding a balance. The balance that the Government has found in this exposure draft, I think, deserves congratulations. I am delighted to support the thrust of where this is going. It may well be that, when we see the final draft and it seeks to have some compromises, I will wish to negotiate a little further. I reserve my prerogative to do that. But, generally, the thrust of what is here in this exposure draft, I believe, is correct. The very fine balance is something for which the Government deserves congratulations. I look forward to having this legislation before the Assembly and I look forward to supporting it.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.11), in reply: Mr Speaker, Assembly members voted last week to support the motion put forward by Mr Whitecross to determine 1997 unimproved property values to be used to calculate rates and land tax for 1997-98. As I pointed out in that debate, Mr Moore, the consequence is that the Government will not be able to actually present the final Bill until June. Assembly members need to pass that legislation in June to enable the new rating system to be introduced in 1997-98 so that we can collect - - -

Mr Moore: I am sure that you will be able to circulate early versions for us.

MRS CARNELL: We actually will not be able to, Mr Moore, because, until we have the 1997 valuations back, the issue of the 85 : 15 ratio and so on will be impossible to actually put on the table for you.

Mr Moore: That is okay. We will look at the rest of the legislation.

MRS CARNELL: It is just a reality of the situation. I certainly made it clear last week. I would obviously be given an undertaking by this Assembly that that legislation will be passed in June so that we will have a rating system for next year. It will also mean that the modelling will have to be redone to incorporate the new valuations, as everybody has said, and the levels of some of the components may have to be adjusted to ensure a fair, and similar, outcome for all ratepayers.

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