Page 2464 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The other issue, which this amendment relates to, is the treatment of off-site works. Again, the only people that have raised this with me are Property Council members, who have raised concerns over this. Again, this is something that Professor Nicholls and Professor Piggott actually looked at extensively over the last two years. Indeed, Professor Piggott in his report finds:
This report finds that in line with the recommendations of the Review—
that is the Nicholls review—
allowances for mandatory infrastructure should be separated from the CUC—
that is the change of use charge—
for reasons of transparency, and that valuations themselves should be transparent: these recommendations make eminent sense. The motivation for having the developer undertake necessary infrastructure is cost efficiency … But for these savings to be passed back to the community, costings should be undertaken on a marginal basis …
I understand there has been one occasion in the last four years where off-site works have been an issue which has been dealt with, not transparently and not in this place and not with the support of the government necessarily but of the executive government, as will be the arrangements that will be put in place later tonight about how the lease variation charge is managed. Once in four years! We accept that these works should be publicly funded. We do not believe they should be linked to the lease variation charge. If efficiencies can be gained from a private developer doing some work on behalf of the public, then that should be dealt with quite separately to the issue of lease variation charge and, indeed, that is our line that we have taken when we have been discussing the improvements issue of the previous amendments. So for those reasons, the government will be opposing Mr Seselja’s amendment.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 pm.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (7.30): This second amendment from the Canberra Liberals is an attempt to fix the rate of remission at 75 per cent for the next five years. Again this is a very simplistic approach that obviously reflects developers’ desire to pay less tax rather than any public policy outcome.
As I have said earlier, one of the great strengths of the new scheme is that not only does the community get a fair return on the rights it is granting but also the scheme creates the capacity to provide financial incentives for appropriate development. The comprehensive amendments I will be seeking to move facilitate this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video