Page 169 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
or private graffiti removers, to come in and do it as a job lot. They can get it all done, get it all done more cheaply, get it all done in a coordinated way and—guess what—the city looks great, the city looks better. Isn’t the outcome we want, Mr Speaker, and isn’t the outcome the Liberal Party wants a better looking city centre, a better maintained city centre and more pride in the city centre? That is what this is about and I cannot believe that those opposite would suggest that that is not what they want, but that is exactly what they are doing when they voice opposition to this legislation.
Mr Speaker, the opposition have also raised the issue of Darwin. They neglect to mention that the Darwin scheme worked effectively for 10 years. That scheme was in place for 10 years and for 10 years it worked effectively. What ultimately happened in Darwin was that it fell foul of a loophole in the city council’s procurement arrangements, which said that procurement could not be over $50,000 in value and the city levy was $800,000. That is what happened in Darwin. They point out the one negative to damn the whole concept. They refuse to acknowledge the Queen Street Mall in Brisbane and they refuse to acknowledge similar levies in place in Wollongong and in Adelaide, let alone international experience, which is overwhelmingly positive.
The opposition should stand condemned for their failure today to support an initiative that will be a win-win solution: a win for the community in enhanced levels of maintenance, cleaning and promotion of the city centre, a win for property owners in improved values and an improved capacity to attract tenants, and a win for retailers because of the improved attractiveness of their destination and improved marketing for the city as a destination to come and shop, to come and do your business, to come and have lunch or whatever it may be. Mr Speaker, this is win-win. In fact, it is win-win-win. Yet, even with that, the opposition oppose it. I am very disappointed by their approach.
There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly address to provide some further details. It is anticipated that an independent board will manage the business funded by the levy and the business must demonstrate that it represents the levy payers’ interests. There will be criteria set in that regard. I will be providing to members a draft disallowable instrument that indicates the differential percentages for the levy in the two different zones that are proposed for the city centre. Members opposite and Dr Foskey will have been briefed on that. The disallowable instrument will also indicate what the collection area is for the levy in terms of the physical area. Grant recipients will need to prove that they are a business-focused entity that has the support of levy payers.
Mr Mulcahy: Who will be assessing them?
MR CORBELL: That will be determined by a government grant assessment process in the same way as we provide grants to a wide range of other entities. The levy will fund a business that will supply marketing and promotion activity, plus safety and maintenance activities, over and above the standard provided by the government. That is again a very important point to stress. This is supplementing the government’s expenditure, the public’s expenditure. It is not replacing it; it is supplementing it. It is supplementing it to bring it to a higher standard, a standard which everyone says they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .