Page 2463 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
outlined and passed by this place under different legislation, transition arrangements should apply to give the industry time to adjust to the new way of paying for additional redevelopment rights when they are granted.
These transition arrangements, the arrangements that the government has outlined, mean the sector has to move to market rates, which has always been the intention of the legislation. What the Leader of the Opposition seeks to impose is not transition. It just is a flat remission of 75 per cent for five years. And then what? Does it then go back to 25 per cent, a sharp adjustment from 75 to 25? I am sure what we would be asked to do if Mr Seselja had his way in 2017 when these arrangements would no longer apply would be to continue to commit to the subsidy to industry at the expense of the community for a further period of time.
I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition has read all the reports that have been done into the issues around lease variation charge. The reports that have been done speak of the transition arrangement. They do not speak of just legislating for a remission to be maintained at 75 per cent. None of the experts that have looked at this over a number of years have sought to do that. Indeed, the only people that have raised a flat rate of 75 per cent subsidy have been the Property Council. They are the only people that have ever come to me and said, “Let’s accept that we have got to up what we pay you. We accept that we had it really good for a number of years. How about we just keep it at 75 per cent and then the war is over?” It has only been members of the property industry that have actually come and sought that and it is clear from the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments today that he has swallowed their line hook, line and sinker.
The arrangements the government has put in this legislation are much more reasonable. Of course, Mr Seselja, I am sure you have costed the cost to the budget and the community at maintaining the rate at 75 per cent, although I do not think you spoke to that in your amendment. But I have had some early figures done of what it would mean. Because your amendment applies to both commercial and industrial developments and not just residential, which is where the anomaly applied, if your amendment applies the 75 per cent remission to residential, commercial and industrial, the subsidy at the rate proposed by you over a five-year period is $142 million. And that is the gift that you would like to give the property industry, Mr Seselja. That is $142 million, Mr Seselja.
What are the costings you have done on it? We do not need to give you leave. When you close and before your amendment is lost, you can clearly outline the costings you have done. Presumably you have done them.
Mr Seselja: Show us your costings. Table them.
MS GALLAGHER: I will be very interested to see yours and I know who I trust, Mr Seselja. I know who I would trust. But we look forward to the budget costings and the budget impact of your amendment being made clear to us just prior to our being able to vote your amendment down.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video