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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 421 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

So, what we did was to take, I suppose, the good bits of the reviews that had been done and, I hope, to come up with a system that takes the best of the previous reviews, throws out the bits that did not work or the things that we believed would be inequitable, and comes up with a system that I believe will be in the best interests of ratepayers in Canberra. Mr Speaker, we have put an exposure draft on the table. Obviously, members may have amendments to that exposure draft that they want us to incorporate. I assume that Mr Whitecross will want us to incorporate an amendment with regard to the 1997 valuations. There may be other amendments that the Assembly is interested in putting into this particular Bill. If that is the case, we would certainly like to have discussions on those amendments as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, I commend this exposure draft to the Assembly. I believe that it will create a significantly fairer system. Again, it is an exposure draft; so, amendments from members of this Assembly will be taken on board and looked at very seriously.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the Assembly to make a further short speech on this exposure draft.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE: Thank you, members. Mr Speaker, in saying a few extra words, I would like, first of all, to reiterate that I support the general thrust of this legislation. Also, I think it is important in this place to understand that there are some very different perceptions from Mrs Carnell's about how this legislation got to the point where the final legislation will be introduced into the Assembly in June and we will need to deal with it very quickly. Mrs Carnell's perception is that it is because the Assembly forced her to do a revaluation in 1997 and that we forced her to do it last week. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I would say that Mrs Carnell knew very well - from an amendment, as I recall, put by Mr Whitecross, which made it very clear - that she was to do 1997 valuations at the beginning of the year.

She, in turn, tabled an exposure draft, which indicated very clearly to us that she did not intend to do those 1997 valuations. That certainly gave her the legal grounds to say, "I am not breaking the law, which requires me to do it as early as possible" - "as early as practicable", I believe, is the wording of the legislation - because the Assembly may well have agreed with what she was presenting. It was clear that the will of the Assembly was that valuations should be done. She asked for it to be reconsidered. It was her wish to have that reconsidered - it was reconsidered last week - that delayed it. It was not the Assembly coming out and saying, "We are going to force you to do it"; it was, through this exposure draft, her request that we reconsider it. We did reconsider it. We said, "No. You will do the valuations". There is a whole series of reasons for that, which we do not need to reiterate.

I have a very different perception, Mr Speaker, of why we are going to have a very short time to debate the Bill in June after it is tabled. I intend to do that, Mr Speaker. It will be easier. Mrs Carnell has invited members, where they have amendments, to get them to her so that they can be considered. I would say to her that, even apart from the section in terms of the valuations, she should get the rest of the legislation out to us so that we can see it as well. We have already started that process. I have congratulated her for having the exposure draft out.

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