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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 291 ..

I note that this bill makes no significant policy changes and that it is revenue neutral in its effect. Further, Mr Speaker, the drafting of the bill has sought to achieve an outcome that does not change the underlying legal position arising from the application of the rating regime in our community.

There is one matter, however, that I want to raise and that concerns the deferral of the obligation to pay rates on a parcel of land. For some people this is a very important issue. It does not affect many but I think we need some clarity for those it does. There have been concerns raised in recent times by people who have become aware that rates have been deferred on a parcel of land and that the deferral may have been in place for many years, leading to a considerable debt accumulating against the parcel of land. Knowledge of this debt causes some surprise to the people involved.

The concerns have been that knowledge of the fact of deferral determinations being in place typically has not been known to people who may have assumed or have taken over involvement with a parcel of land. This involvement may arise, for example, as the consequence of the death of an elderly parent or a similar circumstance.

I understand that the Commissioner for ACT Revenue has now put in place a process to advise, on a regular basis, those people who are owners of a parcel of land for which a deferral determination has been made. I would note at this point that the opposition will monitor this matter and consider whether the rates act should be amended to ensure that regular advice on deferral determinations is provided to those who are owners of such parcels of land.

There also is an associated aspect of the deferral process that I believe warrants some comment. Clause 53 (1) notes that the commissioner may give written notice of an intention to revoke a determination if the provisions of clause 52 apply. I believe that where the commissioner decides that grounds exist for such a revocation, written notice must be given to the person involved.

I think it is extraordinary that there is a provision in the bill that apparently permits a discretion in the provision of written notice of an intention to revoke a deferral. However, clause 54 (1) provides an indirect response to this concern, and that is that the commissioner may revoke a deferral only if a notice has been given under clause 53.

It would appear that my concern—that is, to ensure that written notice of an intention to revoke a deferral determination is issued—is dealt with by the bill, but only through the application of a different clause. Perhaps we need to look at it later to make sure that it has been working properly. It does seem rather clumsy but the right outcome is achieved and so, therefore, we will leave clause 53 (1) as it is at this time.

Mr Speaker, one very pleasing outcome from the drafting of the bill will be the repeal of various acts and associated subordinate legislation. Any action we can take as an assembly to streamline the statute book, as it applies in the ACT, must be beneficial to us as legislators and even more so to our community as they seek to live under and comply with a complex array of legislation to which we are all subject. As I noted at the start of my speech, the Liberal opposition will support the Rates Bill 2003.

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