Page 2171 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is a real strength of the new scheme that it properly recognises the value of the right being assigned and requires proponents to pay for those rights. In doing this we then have a really valuable ability to create the policy settings for truly sustainable development. Again, the Greens have amendments in this area that ensure that these mechanisms are better articulated and that the bill will comprehensively address the capacity that is being created.
Residential development, as well as the simpler commercial developments throughout Canberra, will now be very easily assessed and hopefully this will make the administrative process quicker and save both the government and proponents significant expense. No longer will individual valuations be required for every redevelopment. Instead, proponents will simply be able to look up the code and see clearly what they have to pay. This certainly is a very important positive that everyone has agreed is a major strength of the proposal.
There will, of course, remain the need for individual valuations, and the bill provides for this in all circumstances where developments are not covered by the codes. There is no doubt that the process will continue to be refined and improved upon, and the Greens understand the need to balance the capacity for refinement and evolution with the need to ensure that it is the parliament that is prescribing the tax and the bounds of that tax. The important question is, of course, how much should be set out in the act and how much can be delegated through a regulation or legislative instrument making power. This is another area where the Greens have amendments to clarify the scope of the task that the Assembly is delegating to the Treasurer and the minister.
I note that these very concerns are expressed by the scrutiny of bills committee and I also note the Treasurer’s response. Whilst the response does address some of the concerns and attempts to explain the need for a level of flexibility in the scheme, which the committee recognised in its comments, it does not address the key issue of providing a framework around the decision-making process if it is appropriate to delegate the power. The Greens’ amendments seek to do just that and ensure that the scope of the task being required by the parliament is set out clearly within the legislation we enact. The committee did not suggest that the charge be the exclusive domain of the parliament and recognised that it may be appropriate at times for the executive to be delegated with the task of keeping the scheme current and ensuring it can be applied as intended.
I must say that I disagree with the Treasurer’s comments that changing the commencement provisions for disallowable instruments and regulations should be considered in the context of the Legislation Act rather than the bill itself. This response shows a significant misunderstanding about the nature and operation of the Legislation Act. Without delving into a long history about evolution of the way we apply legislative instruments and the way these provisions have been interpreted by the courts, I think it is sufficient to remind the minister that the Legislation Act creates a default position for regulations and instruments and explicitly contemplates that there will be occasions when it is appropriate to deviate from this position.
Section 6 of the Legislation Act 2001 provides:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video