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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (23 June) . . Page.. 808 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

for our first two years, because we believed that the approach that the previous Government had taken, with increases in rates of 30 per cent - huge increases - was simply unacceptable and unfair to the ratepayer. So, we went to a situation of just increasing rates by the increase in the CPI every year.

But what happened, Mr Speaker? This Assembly pulled the plug. This Assembly said, "Not anymore, Government. This is not all right. This means that, where property values are going down or going up, the rates bills are not reflecting property value. They are just going up by the increase in the CPI every year. Come back with a new approach, Government". Mr Speaker, after lots of consultation, lots of different models and a number of debates in this place, we came back with this approach, which was agreed to, I think, unanimously. Certainly, it was very close to that, if it was not unanimous.

This rates approach is a product of the Assembly, not a product directly of the Government at all. Our position was to use the CPI. But we believed that this approach achieved what the Assembly wanted - and that was an approach that did reflect unimproved capital value, that did reflect the cost of services provided and that did have the rates-free threshold to ensure that the effect on any one particular ratepayer was not the sort of effect that happened under the previous Government, with increases of 30 per cent and even more in some circumstances. You can imagine the absolute horror of opening your rates bill to find an increase of 30 per cent. It was just dreadful, Mr Speaker.

Mr Quinlan sort of suggested what this Bill does, but then seemed to get off the track a bit. The total revenue estimate for 1998-99 is $101.4m - and the 2.5 per cent does come in, Mr Quinlan. It comprises the 1997-98 collections indexed by the expected change in the CPI of 2.5 per cent in 1998-99, approximately $100.25m; additional revenue from new properties generated by land sales, $650,000; additional revenue from properties previously owned by the Commonwealth Government which are now liable for rates, $200,000; and additional revenue from the extension of the tax equivalents regime to government business enterprises, $300,000.

Mr Speaker, an independent rating review conducted in 1995 recommended that up to 50 per cent of rates revenue should be collected from a fixed charge, which for this year would have been approximately $380 per property. This Government believed that that was simply unfair to people who live in lower-value properties, because it would have meant quite significant increases in those areas. We decided that we should go for a balanced approach. The increase of some $20, from $220 to $240, per property for the fixed charge is very modest, Mr Speaker. So, comments that somehow there is a 9 per cent increase because there is a $20 increase in the fixed charge are simply ridiculous.

Mr Speaker, this rates formula is a product of this Assembly - or the last Assembly - but a product of debate and a product of consultation. It went out to the community. We spoke to people. And this is what we ended up with. So, it is a bit rich for Ms Tucker and Mr Quinlan to somehow start distancing themselves from something that, by the way, Ms Tucker herself was involved with.

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