Page 2958 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
a massive increase in the Charge amounts to a massive tax on housing;
It does. If you do not think $50,000 on a unit in Braddon is not a massive increase, go and talk to the real people. Look at the coat of arms: we are here “for the Queen, the law and the people”. We are here for the people. We are here for those that are struggling to get into the housing market. And what do you want to do? Tax them. I do not see how you can be so dismissive of (b). Paragraph (c):
urban infill is an important measure to address transport and climate change issues;
Everybody agrees with urban infill, except when it happens, except when there is a proposal. Today we hear that the Greens do not agree with urban infill on Red Hill. There is a little flyer going around Red Hill saying, “We’re against that.” Isn’t it funny that the Greens are in favour of the concept of urban infill and densification, except when somebody wants it to happen? I do not see how you can object to (c). Paragraph (d):
a waiver of the Charge is being used to provide an incentive to redevelop suburban service station sites and that the increased Charge provides a disincentive to develop housing, which will reduce the supply of housing;
It is taken away when we want to affect the market in a positive way. In 1995-96, when the housing market collapsed, and because of oversupply of land from 1992 to 1995 in the ACT, the Carnell government removed the change of use charge on the redevelopment of excess office space in the city. What did it do? It stimulated demand. What did it do long-term? It brought accommodation into Civic and it gave the government a long-term revenue stream through the rates and other charges that are paid—a long-term revenue stream, instead of a one-off spike. This is a short-term measure. Paragraph (e):
The Government is seeking to codify the Charge;
Why would you get rid of (e)? It is a statement of fact. “The government is seeking to codify the charge”—well it is. Paragraph (f):
there is considerable uncertainty within industry about the future of the Charge, including the commencement date of codification, and the values that will be applied prior to codification …
Just read the letter from the HIA. I quote:
While we understand that submissions are currently being considered and the implementation of the codified system is being deferred to allow for additional input, industry is expressing its frustration with the lack of communication by government in informing it of its time-frames, interim arrangements and the process for the finalization of the codification.
What is the motion asking for? Exactly that. Paragraph (g):
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video