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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 100 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

comply with any reasonable request by the commissioner to release employees for training-up to 15 days per year.

This bill does not wind the clock all the way back to the 1950s but it does buck against the trends of the past two decades. Some ideas and structures can work equally well in both the private and public sectors. Unfortunately, the executive contract system does not. It is flawed, it does not serve the public interest and, as such, needs to be replaced.

I would like to thank John Uhr, from the Australian National University; former New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Harris; and obviously my staff, in particular, for their invaluable assistance in the drafting of this legislation. I would also like to thank Nick Horn from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, who drafted the bill.

I commend this bill to the Assembly and move:

Debate (on motion by Mr Smyth ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Land (Planning and Environment) Amendment Bill 2000 (No 5)

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.07): Mr Speaker, it will come as no surprise to many that the government will be rejecting this bill. The government believes that clarity and accountability in decision-making on the issue of remitting or increasing the change of use charge are of vital importance. Mr Corbell's bill does not do that. It proposes to confirm the operation of a 100 per cent charge and then to split any remissions of that charge between the act and disallowable instruments. That contrasts starkly with the current situation, in which the regulations contain all of the remissions and the increases in the charge. The government has always opposed the 100 per cent change of use charge. We would take it lower but would be happy if it stayed at 75 per cent.

Mr Corbell's proposal is that determinations for remissions will also relate to a thing called "stated land". This concerns me, because that expression lacks clarity. What is stated land? However, this does not concern me nearly as much as the proposition that remissions, under Mr Corbell's scheme, would be discretionary. Not only would the decision to grant the remission be discretionary but so would the amount to be remitted under the instrument.

There is a further lack of clarity in the transitional provisions. The proposed section 184CC refers to applications made but not effected before the proposed amendments commence. Does this mean a lease variation that has been approved, executed or registered? We need to know when this deadline falls due.

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