Page 2169 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
suggesting that you do not have to pay this tax if you can make the arguments to government.
Mr Smyth: If you can make the case.
MR SESELJA: If you can make the case to government, you can say, “We support this development; that seems like a good development.” What we should be seeking is certainty. What we should be seeking is a regime which does not need constant remission, which does not need constant levers being pulled by government, where they decide which developments are worthy, where they are constantly determining which mates they will look after.
This is a bad piece of legislation. We will not be supporting it. It is poorly thought through and it is a massive tax on housing in the ACT.
Ms Gallagher: You’re in the pocket of the property developers.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Gallagher, thank you; that is enough.
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! I do not want to have to eject anybody at this late stage of the evening.
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, under the standing order concerning imputations, Ms Gallagher has just said that the Leader of the Opposition is in the pocket of the Property Council. If she knows something then she should reveal it; otherwise she should withdraw the implication.
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister?
Ms Gallagher: I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Ms Hunter, you have the floor.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (8.27): The change of use, now the lease variation, charge has been the subject of much debate over the last two years. There is no doubt that everyone involved has had the opportunity to put their views and that the implications of the scheme have been robustly debated within the broader community. It should also be noted that, in debating the bill, we have the benefit of very substantive, independent analysis of the proposed scheme that canvasses everything from the theoretical basis for imposing the scheme to the possible implications of the charges.
I think that in debating this bill and determining whether we should create a scheme like this, we should first focus our minds on the question of whether or not the proposed scheme is the most appropriate way of administering and regulating land uses in the territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video