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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 414 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

a split along the lines proposed, we believe, is a reasonable one and will add some certainty to people's rates bills, particularly in the commercial sector, where they could be subject to significant fluctuations as a result of relatively minor movements in the residential sector just because of the relative sizes of the two components.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion can I just say that we look forward to the debate in June. (Extension of time granted) Labor is supportive of the proposed new rating system, subject to the qualifications that I have indicated. We are disappointed that it took the Government two years to come up with this system. I am pleased that the Government has finally adopted Labor's 1994 proposal for three-year rolling averages. We are even more pleased that the Government will now be doing 1997 valuations to ensure that the final rates bills will be based on up-to-date valuations. Mr Speaker, finally, can I say that I look forward to the final debate on this legislation when the Bill is brought forward in June.

MS TUCKER (3.59): Mr Speaker, it is no secret that the revenue position of States and Territories is deteriorating, and the ACT is no exception. There are many reasons for this, and the Greens support any moves to put tax reform on the agenda. It is true that, traditionally, rates are used to pay for municipal services at the local government level. However, in the ACT, we have so few progressive, broad-based taxation systems at our disposal that we believe that it is important that the rating system be made as equitable as possible. We must not see rates in isolation from other sources of revenue and the need to pursue a number of policy objectives, such as equity, in our taxation sources. With respect to income, rates are a regressive form of tax. However, rates are one of the few Australian taxes on wealth. They do, therefore, make a positive contribution to equity in our taxation system.

Last year, the Government was sent away by a majority of members in the Assembly to come up with a better rating system. In December, the Government presented an exposure draft. Last week, Mrs Carnell commented that, if everyone was happy with the exposure draft, she would not have to change it. Mr Speaker, this Bill is an exposure draft. The whole point of tabling it last year, I understood - forgive me if I am wrong - was to give members of the Assembly and the community time to consider the proposals and offer feedback. Just because everyone did not jump up and down in the first hours after it was tabled does not mean that, after further consideration, people might not have comments on this.

The Government also produced a question-and-answer fact sheet on the proposals. I am not sure to whom that was sent, but it did offer an opportunity for comment. So, if the Government has entered into that consultation process in good faith, it must be prepared to listen to the feedback it receives. We ourselves have some comments we would like to make on the proposals. I hope that, because this is an exposure draft, the Government will give them serious consideration.

On the whole, what has been proposed in this exposure draft is acceptable; but we do have some comments. Last week, we debated the issue of 1997 valuations. There is certainly some appeal in saving $400,000 by not conducting a valuation in 1997. There are certainly a number of services desperately in need of more money.

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