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

NOES, 10 . . Page.. 1124 ..

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.44): I think it is important for the previous Chief Minister to remember that when we had triennial valuations ratepayers were able to object once every three years, simply because it was the same valuation, and that is what we are talking about here. I think Mr Berry is trying to get everybody confused by suggesting that it is a new valuation. It is exactly the same valuation as 1 January 1994. It is not their policy. This is a new policy, a new policy that says that it will be the bill you got in your hand last year, plus 4 per cent. There are no new valuations. That is the policy. That is what we stood for election on. That was our election commitment, and that is what should stand. There simply is no need to have an expensive appeal system when people have already had 12 months to appeal on this particular issue.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Follett’s) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

Question so resolved in the negative.

MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (4.49): I move:

Page 2, line 31, clause 5, proposed new section 11A, add the following subsections:

“(4) If the 1995 valuation of a parcel of land is less than the 1994 valuation, subsections (2) and (3) shall be disregarded and the unimproved value of the parcel as at 1 January 1995 shall be the 1995 valuation.

“(5) In subsection (4) -

‘1994 valuation’, in relation to a parcel of land, means the unimproved value of the parcel as at 1 January 1994;

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