Page 2174 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
debate might have been a little bit quicker, but at least we are coming to an end at this point in time.
The Greens have been particularly concerned that these figures are set at levels which are fair to the ACT government, noting that it is important that the ACT does get a fair tax break, because as we will debate in the budget debate, there are lots of things which we actually would like the ACT government to spend money on.
But as well as this, as Mr Seselja said, the charges have to be fair and reasonable to the development industry, the potential purchasers of any development and the current owners of property. There are a number of parties, all of which we need to be fair to. In regard to the ACT government revenue, we are all aware of how much the ACT relies on land release and land sales as an income stream.
One of the implications of shifting the ACT government focus away from greenfields development and towards increasing urban density, especially as we, firstly, start running out of outer urban land release and, secondly, make planning and development decisions that reflect our sustainability, climate and transport targets, is that this land sales revenue will start to decline. Thus it will be important, as we make the transition into an increase in other revenue streams in our near future, that this lease variation charge is one of these income streams.
Of course there are many other areas into which we will need to diversify our economy as we cannot be reliant only on development. One area is to focus on the green economy or the clean economy as the government prefers to describe it, which means encouraging and supporting through appropriate government policies other industries which can bring revenue to the ACT, such as waste management, the IT sector and sustainability innovation.
Certainly I can imagine that having a strong solar industry in the ACT could bring in a certain level of income—much more than having a small and declining solar industry, that is for sure. We also think that not only is it important that there be appropriate remissions for developers to transition to the new fee structure, but that there are incentives built into the scheme which help the ACT meet its strategic objectives such as our legislative climate change targets. This means building a well-serviced, compact and sustainable city rather than continuing the existing greenfield urban sprawl.
Ms Hunter will shortly be tabling a set of Greens’ amendments when we get to the detail stage of this debate on Thursday; so it is not quite so shortly. The amendments will cover issues such as clarifying the process for the government to detail exemptions from the charge through criteria for sustainability, certain zones such as transport corridors and town centres, community facilities, heritage significance, environmental contamination, making the administration of the scheme more accountable by ensuring that all decisions and assessed values are published on the internet, and ensuring that the parliament has a better oversight of the scheme.
It is important to ensure that charges on development do not diminish the incentives for development close to the city. As Mr Seselja has said in his speech, as our city grows it is becoming more and more important that we develop more housing,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video