Page 4599 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (8.37): I would like to raise two issues in connection with this Bill. The first is an issue to which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee drew attention. We have received advice only today on the matter. It is to do with prejudicial retrospectivity in the provisions of the Rates and Land Tax (Amendment) Bill (No. 2). I would like to quote from the Attorney-General's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on this point. He said:
The Committee sought confirmation as to the intention of new subsection 10(4) given that it appeared that there could exist a prejudicial retrospectivity if the subsection was to apply to errors of duplication that are presently in the system and come to light after the amendments commence operation.
I am advised that the Committee's assessment of likely prejudicial retrospectivity is correct. Under the Principal Act as it presently applies the Commissioner has the power to go back 3 years and correct a "clerical" error which has occurred in the valuation process. The extension of the provision to cover all types of errors removes an inequity in the valuation process which, currently, inadvertently creates different classes of rate and land tax payers.
The extent to which any change in an unimproved land value will be prejudicial is debateable. In the initial instance, if the error had not occurred, then the rate or land tax payer would have paid rates and land tax on the correct value all along (whether or not this value was higher or lower).
Where an erroneous unimproved land value is corrected the rate or land tax payer may object to the Commissioner on the new value. If he or she is still not satisfied after the Commissioner makes a decision on the objection then an appeal may be lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These processes clearly provide an affected person with the opportunity to have the new value determined at a reasonable and acceptable level.
In addition, under section 21A of the principal Act there would be no effect on an owner who bought a property which subsequently had the unimproved value redetermined at a date prior to that person's acquisition, providing a certificate which showed no liability was obtained from the Commissioner prior to buying the property.
Madam Speaker, I am always very conscious of amendments to Bills which are likely to be prejudicial in nature to particular people. However, in this circumstance, I accept the argument of the Attorney-General that there are processes in place for people who believe that that reassessment is unjust. So, on the basis of that advice, I am prepared to pass that provision of the Bill at the moment, although I indicate that it is something that I will be taking an interest in to see whether that is a satisfactory response to that situation. I think it is something that the Assembly will have to consider in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .