Page 4795 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from Mr Berry.
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, it seems that the only way that we will get silence on that side is to allow them to ask the question and answer it themselves. This is just silly. Just let the Chief Minister answer the question.
Mr Humphries: She is not answering the question that was asked.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I will continue. The unimproved capital value, as independently determined, is the principal factor in determining the increase in rates. As the Government, what we then determine is the amount of cents in the dollar that will apply to that unimproved capital value. As the Government, in successive years we have made a decision about the overall revenue to be achieved from the rates. Our increases have varied; but they have, I believe, not been above 5 per cent in the past few years, and that compares, I think, very favourably with the Liberals' record of 16.6 per cent.
Across Canberra, there will, of course, be variations in the increase or the decrease in people's rates. I think that any member of this Assembly would understand that. It is a fact that in some suburbs of Canberra, in the most recent rating period, there was a quite sharp increase. Those suburbs were predominantly in the old inner north of Canberra, which, as members would know, includes Downer. What was I supposed to do? Was I supposed to say, "Oh, my God; my suburb's rates have gone up. I had better change the system."? What a load of nonsense! It is probably what they would have done. It is probably what they would have done in Red Hill.
Madam Speaker, as a resident of Downer, I do not enjoy large rate rises; but I can acknowledge that the underlying value of my asset has increased, and I am pleased about that, as, indeed, are many people in those areas. Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge that the rates in that area were pretty low for a long time. They were well below average for many years. There are suburbs in Canberra that still enjoy that relatively low rating base and there are still suburbs in Canberra whose rates, from time to time, go down each year. It does happen. Madam Speaker, to pretend otherwise, I think, is extremely dishonest. To try to imply, as Mrs Carnell appears to be doing, that I ought to set the rates in my suburb according to how I feel about it, regardless of the very valuable, tried and tested method of setting rates that we have utilised, is absolute nonsense.
MRS CARNELL: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Chief Minister, average weekly earnings in the ACT have increased by 10 per cent between August 1991 and August this year, yet rates across Canberra have increased by 30 per cent, not 5 per cent as you said. You know perfectly well that it is 30 per cent, on average, for residential rates across Canberra. Does that not mean that ratepayers are now worse off than was the case three years ago, Chief Minister?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I have said on many occasions that the Government does not set the rates according to what people's incomes are. Mrs Carnell would. Mrs Carnell would make it a further form of income tax. Indeed, we have seen her float that idea, as we have seen her float the idea - another idea off the top of the head - that she would be taxing on the improved capital value. Every time somebody added
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .