Page 163 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
will be many small businesses which do not directly pay rates and which, therefore, probably will not have much opportunity for input into how the funds are spent.
ACTPLA, and PALM before that—and various projects in the department of urban services—have had an involvement in exploring business community development in and around Civic for a long time now. The fact that the scheme is to be put in place by ACTPLA is to be expected.
After several attempts to find out how the funds would be disbursed, my office finally earned a briefing from ACTPLA staff yesterday. I understand that the program will work via a block grant, that it will be awarded to a company or association that can demonstrate wide-ranging support from levy payers across the city and that it will require a detailed strategic plan, business plans and the appointment of a manager with responsibility for connecting with the range of businesses and retailers across Civic. That is why I am inclined to support this bill.
There is, however, nothing available in writing to demonstrate the government’s commitment to that process. The only comments on record so far are from the Treasurer, who, when the bill was tabled, said:
Mr Speaker, this bill simply provides a mechanism to collect the levy. I understand that the ACT Planning and Land Authority is currently consulting with property owners in the collection area to finalise the policy parameters for the levy. The government expects to be able to present greater detail on these processes next year.
While I appreciate the last-minute briefing provided to my office and the assurances of the officers that a good scheme would be set up, the officers were not prepared to provide me with anything on paper. There is nothing on the public record to which this government can be held. At the moment, all we are approving is a mechanism for increasing the rates payable in certain parts of central Canberra.
Methinks that too much policy seems to be in the hands of government officers in the ACT. Increasingly, the government is prepared to use its numbers in the Assembly to dodge the expectations that it will be clear about its intent and that it can be held to account for its actions. Last year the government pushed through a surprise amendment to the education bill, for instance, claiming that it was simply technical when in fact it specifically blocked the Tharwa community’s plans to establish a community school. Last week, the government ran through an amendment to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act in order to shift the goalposts so that it would avoid an AAT hearing over the EpiCentre conflict. Even though in my mind this project is a good one, the government is now proceeding with the change to the Rates Act without bothering to formally explain how the funds for which this amendment is being made will be handled.
“Trust us; we’re the government” has become a mantra in the past two years. I think that the Chief Minister, who is the Treasurer, and his team would find that approach absolutely unacceptable if it were pursued by any other government—federal, state, territory or local.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .