Page 2950 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In fact, I have met with the Property Council and have had other discussions with individual developers since the budget was brought down, and people have said quite clearly to me that they do want codification to go ahead. It does provide certainty, but, of course, in many of these matters the devil is in the detail. That detail, I understand, is still part of dialogue and discussions and negotiations that are going on between government and industry around the particular schedule and what the rates on that schedule will be. So, as I said, to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence to the effect of the statement in the motion that it would therefore be inappropriate to support this line.
The motion as moved fails to take into account a number of factors. Firstly, the Treasurer said on budget day that the corrected application of the charge would be applied from budget day. Secondly, the discount factor applied in last year’s budget as part of the stimulus measures will cease on 30 June. The motion fails to address these issues and appears confused about the practical application of the charge.
Further, on the question of the codification of the charge, as I understand it, there is no confirmed date for the implementation of any new scheme. Indeed, as I understand it the consultation has only just been completed. No report has been finalised or produced, and we are still quite a way off from being able to develop a position—or the government, I understand, are certainly in that position—of how that new scheme will look. Therefore, no doubt, once they release that, it will then be up to the Liberal Party and the Greens to take a look at that and see what our positions might be.
Further, it is up to the Assembly to amend the relevant act or acts, if there is to be a change, and we will no doubt have a comprehensive debate on the nature and scope of any proposed changes at that time. In relation to what we are asking the government to do, as I have said, I think it is reasonable to allow the committee process to run its course.
Members interjecting—
MS HUNTER: Madam Assistant Speaker, I cannot even hear myself talk.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Yes.
MS HUNTER: In relation to what we are asking the government to do, as I have said, I think it is reasonable to allow the committee process to run its course. The arrangements for determining the charge are set out in the legislation and, as I said, as far as I am aware, apart from the termination of the discount factor, the application of the charge is exactly the same today as it will be tomorrow morning.
In terms of modelling on how the correction will affect housing developments, the Greens have expressed concern, as did the estimates committee report, and the government has agreed to these recommendations, as I stated. The government has already said that it has not done this work—we all know that. That did come out quite clearly. So I would like to make the point that, thankfully—and I do acknowledge that—the government has no choice in applying the law correctly. I find it very hard to understand how it could be that anyone could argue that the law should be applied incorrectly and we should continue to carry on with this problem that has obviously—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video