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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1408 ..

Ms McRae: So you hear interjections only from the left, do you, Mr Speaker? There were interjections going on before, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: If you continue to interject, I will have to deal with you.

MRS CARNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Ms McRae: Poor Chief Minister.

MR SPEAKER: I warned you, Ms McRae.

Ms McRae: We will see, Mr Speaker.

MRS CARNELL: She is going to go anyway, so that is all right. Mr Speaker, there are a number of things I agree with in Mr Whitecross's statement. You will notice that Mr Whitecross never agrees with anything this side of the house does. I was going to say that I do agree with Mr Whitecross on a number of things. I think the Federal Government should have an industry policy. I think there should have been an industry policy in this budget. I believe very strongly that an industry policy, as I have said regularly, based upon giving companies in our region an opportunity to set up in Australia, particularly in the ACT, and giving them the right sorts of incentives, the right sort of economic situation to relocate to Australia, rather than the other way round, is absolutely essential for the future of this country. Certainly, it would be very beneficial to the ACT.

I do not agree, though, that the sale of properties will necessarily be a bad thing for the ACT. As part of the sale of the buildings in the Federal Government's budget, titles on those buildings will be moved to the ACT, which means that we will be able to charge rates and land tax on those buildings, and stamp duty on the sales as well. That comes with a significant revenue benefit to the ACT.

Mr Whitecross: Stamp duty on the sales?

MRS CARNELL: Stamp duty on the sales, and rates and land tax when they move over to the ACT. On that basis, I believe that that will produce very real benefits for the ACT in the medium to long term. I believe, though, that, if the Federal Government goes about selling buildings that are not tenanted, that could cause some very real trouble, and that is a position we have already put to the relevant Federal Ministers, which is really the basis of the working committee being set up.

We made the representations we did to the Federal Government on untenanted buildings to ensure that the sale of the properties was done in a way that would protect the Canberra property market. We think that is the bottom line, but we did not just talk about it or belly-ache about it. We went to see the relevant Ministers and a working party was set up, with our representation on it and also representation of the Canberra property market. So the private sector and the Federal Government, as well as the ACT Government, are represented on it. That committee, I understand, will report back in September this year to both the ACT Government and the Federal Government, so we are very much in the loop there.

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