Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2117 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
be seeking leave to introduce a bill to reinstate the previous system which is now absolutely essential. I want to make a couple of points on that now.
MR SPEAKER
: Mr Quinlan, I think it would be better for you to do that when you introduce the bill.MR QUINLAN
: It is relevant to the demise of this bill, because I am talking about what will happen as a consequence-and about rating systems. Aside from the Property Owners Association, who are probably not thinking past the next sale, nobody, in the hearing on this bill, suggested that we would be moving away from a property value-based system. You want me to say this in the next debate, don't you?MR SPEAKER
: It must be relevant.MR QUINLAN
: This system removes from many people a protection from escalating land rates-it would have. If I could tip exactly where land values are going to go, I would probably be in a different business. However, I think it is fair to assume that there are other areas in Canberra beyond, say, the redeveloped areas of Yarralumla et cetera, that will become desirable in the future.As the city grows and matures, as people wish to enjoy the amenity of being closer to the centre of things and closer to the various entertainments and facilities they might use and attend, it is highly likely that other areas will become desirable. Areas such as Hughes and Curtin will become the subject of redevelopment and land values will escalate. I think Curtin is taking off now.
There are people in those areas who will, some time in the future, if this system is not adopted, face land rates bills that will have a very deleterious impact upon their lifestyle. Mr Cornwell's legion of self-funded retirees will be among them. These are the ones which I think even Mr Smyth mentioned as being asset rich and income poor. They are only asset rich if they realise the asset upon which they sit or in which they reside. That would imply that they would move out of an area in which they have possibly resided for some considerable time, where they have built up support networks and social networks.
I will close by saying that the embryo of the proposal I put forward started with a lady I knew, who has now passed on, who lived in Deakin for many years, who was forced out of her home because she could no longer afford the rates. She made a personal plea: "Can't you do something about it?"
I do not believe that the concept of varied rates in the same street, based on longevity of residence, would cause any great disruption. I have heard the examples given, such as that there could be a first home owner living next to someone who is very wealthy and yet paying a lot more in rates. If you have that situation, you can bet your boots that that first home owner has bought himself an expensive home in a very desirable area-but we don't want to take that into account.
The exhaustive analysis done by Mr Smyth's office was based on the worst case scenario. It was, in fact, the result of the pursuit of a rationalisation. I can read numbers-I'm not that silly-so I give notice that I will be moving a necessary replacement bill shortly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .