Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1424 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
same services this year compared with last year. These property owners will incur higher rate increases relative to others. However, the increases are maintained at acceptable levels.
It is the intention of the government to gradually increase the fixed charge to about 40 per cent of the total annual rates revenue in the next two years, with the remaining 60 per cent of rates revenue to be based on the three-year average land valuation. That was requested by an Assembly committee-I think it was the Finance and Public Administration Committee-and the government has indicated its intention in respect of that request from the committee.
The other features of the rating system are unchanged from 1999-2000, including the rate-free threshold of $19,000 and the revenue targets of 85:15 for the residential and non-residential sectors respectively.
This bill continues to improve the rating system that applies to around 120,000 rateable properties in the ACT. The combined changes to the fixed charge and the rating factors for 2000-01 result in the best possible outcome for the largest number of ratepayers and, at the same time, meet the revenue target required to provide municipal-type services to ACT residents. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Quinlan ) adjourned.
MR SPEAKER: Just before the Clerk calls on the next item of business, Mr Humphries made mention earlier of a convention relating to newspapers. I would refer members to page 174 of House of Representatives Practice, which states:
It has always been the practice of the House not to permit the reading of newspapers in the Chamber, although latterly this has been accepted if done discreetly.
I can comment no further.
Mr Stanhope: Since the matter has been raised by the Attorney-General, I should respond. I was, as always, extremely discreet, Mr Speaker. My reading of the newspaper was quite appropriate. I was, in fact, seeking to determine whether there had been any expansion on the explanation of the $150 million benefit to the ACT that the Attorney quite outrageously claimed that we would receive. I was actually seeing whether there was any explanation of his outrageous claim.
MR SPEAKER: Order! You are now debating the issue.
Mr Stanhope: I was interested to read in the Canberra Times, which I did read quite discreetly, that, in fact, it was just a rough, back-of-the-envelope estimation by somebody in his department.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .