Page 2988 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
one, that needs to be redressed—that is, of course, the mistake of what has happened with the change of use charge over the years. A mechanism has been put in place to look at how this happened; this was a recommendation in the estimates report that was reiterated earlier in the change of use charge debate. The Assembly has to get information about what happened, who was involved and what action has been taken to rectify it.
It is appropriate that the community receive the change of use charge revenue. One particular issue that has been highlighted as a result of the debate is the need for a waiver policy that clearly sets out the factors to be considered and the criteria against which any waiver request is evaluated.
As I said, the issue has already been covered at some length today and I do not wish to cover old ground again. The key points are that it is appropriate that the community gets a fair return on its resources, particularly a finite resource such as land, which is, in fact, our primary resource. We also support the correct application of the law, and I have explained at length how bizarre I find it that anyone could suggest otherwise.
We are concerned about the effects of the change of use charge on urban densification. As part of the codification assessment and development process, this should be an important part of the considerations when developing the schedule of costs that will form part of codification legislation. Part of my amendment in the debate this afternoon was about wanting full information on the sort of modelling that has been done to ensure that there are not barriers to urban densification.
The Greens are happy to support the other revenue measures. I will just quickly mention parking and bus fares, as they are perhaps the most visible in the community. Against a backdrop of increased investment in our public transport system, which needs to be paid for, we support encouraging a modal shift and providing people with other transport options that will help build a city where people can move around easily.
On the point that we need to diversify our revenue streams—this is a regular one, and I know Mr Smyth is very keen on this—whilst this is, in theory, a very good idea and the Greens agree with the premise, constitutional arrangements can sometimes make it difficult for us to raise other revenue. That is not to say that there are not options, but it is difficult and we would be very pleased to engage with any ideas or options that members of the community wish to raise.
For example, one of the main benefits of the feed-in tariff is that it supports the growth of new businesses and skills in our workforce and is a positive step towards a more diverse, adaptive and robust economy, and I guess those are the sorts of things we want to see as incentives to build the green economy, to build industries around renewable technologies, for instance, knowledge and so forth. We really do need to put a focus in there. Certainly, in response to the budget during that budget week, the Greens and I very much focused on the importance of looking forward, looking to the future, looking at diversification, ensuring that it is going to be viable and sustainable into the future and something that will put the ACT in good stead as far as being able to reduce our carbon footprint is concerned, but also looking at ways that we can really grow some fantastic innovative businesses, businesses that will be able to thrive and ensure we have a vital private sector.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video