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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4878 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

Page 2, line 31, after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph:

"(ba) by inserting after paragraph (3)(e) the following paragraph:

`(ea) prescribe the circumstances in which a change of use charge may be remitted under section 184B or 187B; and' ".

Mr Speaker, these amendments relate to the remission of change of use charges for variations of leases. The Bill states that the Minister may make regulations for prescribing the circumstances under which remissions can be made. As a principle, the Greens are not against providing remission of change of user charges for the purpose of encouraging particular forms or locations of development in accordance with the objectives of the Territory Plan and where a particular development is judged to have a net benefit to the community that at least equals the revenue forgone from providing that remission.

What we are most concerned about is how the rules governing remissions are decided and whether the community has an adequate opportunity to contribute to and scrutinise the Government's decisions on remissions. At present this is done through regulations under the Land Act, but we believe it might be more open and accountable to have the details of when and at what rate remissions will be allowed incorporated directly into the Territory Plan. The Government will then be required to clearly link its remission policy to the plan's principles and objectives and to its development controls. It would also have to go through a plan variation process to change its remission policy and thus be subject to public comment and Planning and Environment Committee scrutiny.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.57): Mr Speaker, the Government opposes these amendments. The Greens believe that you can drive the bus from the back seat; that it is possible for everything to be loaded into the Act or regulations to make sure that everything is directly controlled by the Assembly in place of the Government, so that it is possible for all of these issues to be dealt with with complete control, presumably, by the crossbenches, to make sure that nothing happens which might be untoward and out of kilter with policies of those on the crossbenches.

There is no reason whatever for remission matters to be dealt with in legislation. Nor are they matters that ought to be in the Territory Plan. I see the Territory Plan as being basically a document about the use of land and about policies dealing with land in the Territory. If someone wants to vary the Territory Plan, it is generally in order to achieve a different land use or a modified land use. I do not think a policy matter like remission should be dealt with through the planning variation process. That process has a mechanism for public consultation, for people affected making submissions and so on. It is a misconception to apply that process to a matter of policy which ought to be determined, I would suggest, in legislation or at least in regulations. I think there is a misconception by the Greens about the way this ought to work. I urge members not to support the amendments.

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