through the Senate.

Every Opposition and Independent Senator spoke against the Land Tax Amendment Act 1999, which was passed after a vote of seven to four.

It means many householders and businesses will face massive increases in their land tax bills, following reassessment of their Annual Rental Values, and a majority will see decreases.

But both UBP Sen. Mark Pettingill and Opposition Senate Leader Maxwell Burgess asked what the Government needed the projected $6.9 million revenue for, and whether there would be any more financial surprises.

"People want to know what they are paying this money for,'' said Sen.

Pettingill. "Are we going to Disneyland? We are not playing games here, people want to know.

"It sounds as though the Government had something in mind for the money but it went up with the Fourth of July fireworks.'' And Sen. Burgess lambasted the PLP for raising taxes after a Budget where they pledged there would be no increases.

He said the bill questioned the integrity of the Finance Minister and asked how much more money the Government was going to ask for before the next Budget.

"We had a belief that the Minister of Finance would keep his word. We believed that with the Government, the one thing you could count on is that they would keep their word for at least six to nine months,'' he said.

But Government Senators rebutted the comments, blaming the former UBP administration for not re-evaluating ARVs for several years.

Sen. Calvin Smith (PLP) argued that it was misleading to suggest that the Government had gone back on its word on taxes, when they were simply adjusting ARV rates.

He said the PLP had said they would make some adjustments to be fair to the people, and that was exactly what they had done.

Sen. David Burch (PLP) said it had to be done now because the previous Government had postponed re-evaluating ARVs back in 1996.

He said those with complaints, once they saw exactly what their new bill was going to be, did not want to object any more.

The bill increases ARVs for many higher end properties, whilst lowering the percentage rate applied. It means cheaper homes will see reduced bills but many more expensive residences will face huge rises.

Government has applied a 60 percent relief to some bills.

And Government Senate Leader Milton Scott said there was the opportunity for relief for pensioners and the possibility of help for those who could not afford the bills.

Sen. Kim Swan (UBP) said businesses would suffer as they could not apply for relief. And he lamented the burden on hotels, which are already struggling in a poor tourism trade.

Sen. Walwyn Hughes (Ind) said just because the Government increased ARVs, it didn't follow that they had to put up the actual land tax bills. They could have been made "revenue neutral'', he said.

"Most people won't have a clue until their bill arrives, then they will get the shock of their lives,'' said Sen. Hughes, a former Government Financial Secretary.

There was concern from Sen. Jeanette Cannonier (Ind), who asked what was going to happen to tenants whose landlords might be tempted to raise rents to allow for the increased land tax.

Senate President Alf Oughton (Ind) said the bill was a surprise to him as there was no indication of it in the February budget.

He said it could have been brought forward in the next Budget. "It is all very well to say you can object, a lot of people won't,'' he said.

He suggested increasing the ARV bands, to lessen the impact on the middle market and set aside those in the top bracket.

Sen. Patrice Parris (PLP) said the concerns would be taken back to the Minister of Finance.

She said it would not be fair to apply different rates to commercial and residential properties.

And the Senator appealed to those landlords whose rents may already have been too high, to clear their conscience and not increase them further.

Maxwell Burgess