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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 154 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

to have figures before tabling the exposure draft in December. Probably the best argument they have trotted out to defend the decision is that, because they defied the Assembly and the Act and have left it too long to notify the Australian Valuation Office, it is going to cost them more. Whose fault is that? The money for the valuation was appropriated in the budget, by this Assembly. It is part of the normal administration of the Territory.

Given that the Government derives a large proportion of its revenue from rates and land tax, is it too much to expect them to have a fair rates system? The arguments used by the Chief Minister are both weak and desperate. They have not been able to refute our concerns about fairness. This Government has had two years to get the issue of rates right. They have come up with a new rating system only after pressure from the Assembly, but the Government has still failed to put forward a rates system which is fair. Fairness was part of the Government's election promise in 1995. What we are considering in this motion is the issue of fairness, and fairness will be delivered only by the Government conducting 1997 valuations of all rateable properties in the ACT. If we do not conduct these valuations, then we will not have a fair rates system, a rates system using the most up-to-date valuations, until the year 2000. That is simply not acceptable.

I urge the Assembly to support this motion, to send a message to Mrs Carnell about taking seriously the decisions of this Assembly, to ensure that Mrs Carnell will not be rewarded for her dishonest and sneaky approach to this matter.

Mr Humphries: I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. The suggestion that Mrs Carnell has employed a dishonest approach, I think, is outside the terms of standing orders. It is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wood): Mr Whitecross, that has been the pattern. Those words are on record as being withdrawable.

MR WHITECROSS: Sure, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the word "dishonest" and I will stand by the word "sneaky". Anyone who goes down the path of assuming off their own bat that they are not going to do 1997 valuations, without consulting anyone else and without advising anyone else of their decision, is sneaky.

Mr Humphries: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I think the term "sneaky" also ought to be withdrawn. It amounts to the same thing as "dishonest". There might not be a precedent for the word "sneaky", but it ought to be dealt with in the same way.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the key thing is that there is not a precedent. We have a very extensive list of words that are not useable, and I do not think that is on the list.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.21): The Leader of the Opposition has attempted yet again to scare the community. He has used the people of Canberra unmercifully in this debate by suggesting that somehow Canberrans are going to be ripped off by the decision not to include 1997 property values in the three-year rolling average.

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