Page 2118 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Going slightly beyond what is before us in the Bill, the other element in the determination of rates is the unimproved capital value against which the rate is levied. We saw in the media today figures on how that affects people in different suburbs. On the one hand, you have suburbs such as Bruce, which shows an increase in excess of 32 per cent in unimproved capital values across the board. At the other end of the spectrum, you have suburbs such as Stirling and Waramanga in Weston Creek, where the increase is only about half a per cent across the board; and there is a whole range of valuation changes in between. When you apply that second factor to the calculation of rates, you will find that individuals will be paying not a 2.5 per cent increase on last year but a much greater rate than that. There will be a much greater change, and the Government, I have no doubt, will receive over the next few months many calls and letters from people asking them to explain how come their rate increase is 16 per cent or 18 per cent instead of only 2.5 per cent.
That raises the question of whether the system we use for determining rates payments is the right one. The bottom line is right: If the Government assesses that it is going to cost $86m to run the city this year, they have to raise $86m. How the burden falls on individuals who are making the contribution is what tells at the end of the day. There are other systems in use, and perhaps it is time we, as a political entity and as a community, had another look at the way we are assessing our rates, to see whether we cannot find a more equitable system in terms of where the burden falls. However, that is for another time and another place.
The Liberal Party has indicated that, after we win government in February next year, apart from putting a cap on the rates for the first year, which is what most people seem to be demanding in equity, we will also inquire into the method of calculating general rates, to see whether we cannot find a more equitable system than that which pertains at the moment, and that is clearly part of our policy. Having said all that, we note the problems that individuals will have with their rates bill when they get it, because of the way the two elements of the formula work. The percentage in the dollar that applies, which in some cases goes beyond the 2.5 per cent CPI increase, and then the significant change at some places and at different times in the unimproved capital value, will raise many questions in people's minds as to whether the Government is serious when it says, "We have increased rates and it is only a 2.5 per cent increase". However, since the Liberal Party has not as yet devised a better method of calculating rates, although we recognise its deficiencies and the aspects of it that attract public criticism, we do support this Bill. We recognise that it is the right of the Government to make its determination as to how it will go about collecting its general rates at the present time, and we support them in this matter.
MR MOORE (7.07): Madam Speaker, I would like to continue on from Mr Kaine's remarks. Rating, or land tax, which is really what we are talking about, even though we have two separate names here, is a particularly equitable way to raise finances. Many of us will remember the innumerable letters on this very issue that we received from Bill Mason prior to his death. It seems to me that he often raised a very good point, that is, that when we are using this system of taxation we are talking about the community benefiting from the unearned profit on land. It is a form of taxation that is not levied on productivity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .