Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3350 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
Mr Speaker, the bill broadly sets out that the change of use charge can be waived in whole or in part by the executive under a broad scheme via an instrument that would be disallowable by the Legislative Assembly. The bill also makes clear that this instrument should describe the circumstances under which the change of use charge should be waived and that the instrument should also describe the geographic area of the development where the waiver is proposed.
Further, the existing remissions of change of use charges for changes of boundaries and for Commissioner for Housing properties are being removed from the regulations and transferred into the act by this bill. These remissions are important for what are minor changes to leases and for leases relating to ACT Housing properties. Further, Mr Speaker, the bill provides for the other remissions currently provided by the regulations to be repealed and it is the intent of this bill to ensure that the government replaces those with substantive instruments under the new provisions.
Just to clarify that issue, Mr Speaker, currently under the regulations a remission or no remission, as the case may be, is granted in instances such as disused service station sites. It is the intention of this bill that we will have a clear instrument put forward in the Assembly by the minister to provide for remission or no remission in particular circumstances, rather than having them simply sitting in the regulations.
Mr Speaker, this bill brings a greater level of transparency to the operation of the change of use charge in the territory. It establishes clearly that the base rate for the change of use charge is 100 per cent, which is the only justifiable position for this Assembly to adopt in relation to the administration of a leasehold system in the ACT. It also ensures that any remission which can be granted to encourage a particular type of redevelopment activity is done in a transparent way and made disallowable by this place. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Smyth ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Mr Berry , pursuant to notice, presented the bill.
Title read by Clerk.
MR BERRY (10.50): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Speaker, if we in the community have learned anything over the years, it is that it is a commonly understood fact that workplace expedience will prevail over safe practice and that safety will be sacrificed in favour of a risky pursuit of productivity. Put bluntly, workers' lives and the futures of their families are put at risk daily in pursuit of profit.
Since coming to this Assembly, I have made it my business to take every opportunity to strengthen the territory's occupational health and safety laws in recognition of the risks that workers face, as evidenced by the unacceptable injuries and deaths which plague
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .