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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 5005 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

has the power to waive a change-of-use charge. The authority simply administers the change-of-use charge. It cannot itself waive any charge.

The charging policy that is in place in circumstances such as those outlined by Ms Dundas is a charging policy put in place by the previous government; it is a charging policy which the government is currently reviewing to see whether or not it is still appropriate. I have asked both ACTPLA and the Land Development Agency to consider, and give me further advice on, the appropriateness of charging a full change-of-use charge to not-for-profit providers of aged-care accommodation in circumstances such as those outlined by Ms Dundas.

I am currently awaiting advice in relation to that matter, and I would hope the government would be in a position some time early in the new year to outline its position.

MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Ms Dundas?

MS DUNDAS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can you tell us when that advice will be available and whether or not there will be changes to the legislation? Also, I am interested in your comment that it is the Treasurer who waives these change-of-use charges when the determination that is currently up on the ACT legislation website in relation to West Civic and the forgoing of change-of-use charge is signed by yourself as Minister for Planning.

MR CORBELL: That is not a waiver, Mr Speaker; that is a different instrument in terms of determining the level of change-of-use charge paid. It is not a waiver; it is where a fee is waived, Mr Speaker. That can only be done by the Treasurer.

Mr Speaker, I have indicated to Ms Dundas that the process is now under way for reviewing the charging policy. As I indicated in my previous answer, that should be available early in the new year.

Economic white paper

MRS BURKE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Mr Quinlan. Minister, leading up to the 2001 election, you promised an economic white paper that would set out implementation plans and targets, but it seems that after an extraordinarily long time all we have actually had delivered is a very expensive damp squib, costing over $1 million. It is a con job. Of the so-called 47 actions in the white paper, 18 are no more than "statements of the bleeding obvious", to use your own term, Minister-

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mrs Burke, would you withdraw the words "con job".

MRS BURKE: I withdraw the words "con job", Mr Speaker. Eighteen are no more than "statements of the bleeding obvious", to use your own term, Minister, 16 are previous or repackaged announcements, three require further review-more reviews, can you believe it?-and only nine can be regarded as new policies, if you are really being generous. So much was promised, and so little was delivered. As the ABC observed, the main outcome will be jobs in the Assembly writing reports for the government.

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