Page 2188 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Gallagher: The Liberals over there oppose this change, but in 12 months, since we fixed a system, a situation that was broken, since we changed the system, the Liberals have not come in here and said that that was the incorrect thing to do. The move from rectification to codification will not be as great. Indeed, with the remissions that we have put in place to allow transition arrangements to the new scheme will ensure that any increase will be, at best, minimal over the next few years.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Please, Mr Seselja!
MS GALLAGHER: The legislation before the Assembly amends the Planning and Development Act 2007, the Planning and Development Regulations 2008, the Taxation Administration Act 1999 and the Unit Titles Act 2001 to codify the lease variation charge, previously known as the change of use charge. This project commenced following the 2009 budget, and over the past two years the government has undertaken a significant amount of work, an extraordinary amount of work compared to the relative amount of revenue, to make sure that we get this system right.
There has been considerable discussion in public, at committee hearings and in this chamber. There are very different perspectives on this matter and those perspectives have also been drawn out quite clearly. The government has provided ample opportunity and time for that to occur. I will not take members’ time going through all the details of the work and all of the arguments, but I will cover off some of the main points and address the issues raised in the scrutiny of bills report.
The important point to remember is that this legislation that we are discussing today is about codifying the charge. The government undertook to codify the system in response to industry concerns. Codification will provide certainty and clarity to the industry and increase efficiency in the system. It will provide certainty to developers, who will know up front any charges that they will be required to pay for undertaking their redevelopment.
This is not a debate about whether there should be a lease variation charge or not. The charge is integral to the territory’s leasehold land system. It is unique to the territory, and comparisons with other jurisdictions are irrelevant. There have been arguments that the charge has adverse impacts. A range of potential adverse impacts have been mentioned at various times, for example, on housing affordability, supply of dwellings, land prices et cetera. Some of these arguments are in fact contradictory, depending on who is putting them and on what disagreement they are having with the legislation.
The government understands the development industry’s perspective. It will obviously seek to pay as low a charge as possible, and that is obviously a position that the Liberal Party supports. The arguments from the Leader of the Opposition are difficult to sustain. The government has commissioned a number of independent reports from eminent academics with high credentials. Both Professor Nicholls and Professor Piggott consulted with the industry, sought its input and any evidence to support the claims that were being made Their reports do not substantiate the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video