Page 2479 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This can be done on a single instrument that will make it very clear when a proposal does and does not qualify for remission and removes any risk of allegations that favours are being done. It ensures that criteria must be clearly available for everyone to see that no lease-specific decisions are made other than by the commissioner objectively applying the criteria. Further, I would make the point that in linking the minister’s and the Treasurer’s determinations we are improving the planning levers available to us and developing a much more coordinated approach that better articulates the costs and benefits being accrued or gained by the community.
The amendments provide that there is no review available for remissions decisions because, consistent with Administrative Review Council guidelines—and I refer to the publication “What decisions should be subject to merit review?” and I draw members’ attention to chapter 3 of that publication—these decisions are automatic and mandatory decisions that the commissioner must make when the prescribed circumstances are satisfied, for example, whether a building has an eight-star energy efficiency rating or is or is not for a childcare centre.
It is true that the nature of the instruments will be important to ensure this works in practice, and I remind you that it is a disallowable instrument and that the Assembly can ensure that this is the case if it has any concerns. There is internal review available and there will, of course, be the option of an AD(JR) review, which I accept is not always a desirable substitute for merits review. However, in this instance, consistent with the ARC guidelines, I think that that is appropriate.
By articulating limited categories and setting up a system that requires the commissioner to apply the criteria, we eliminate the risk of deals being done for specific developments. This was a significant concern raised with us by industry. It has been raised by the Liberal Party today and I am confident that the amendments address this concern.
The next amendments create a specific mechanism for the across-the-board remission that is being proposed as part of the transition. The new section requires that, from next year on, the rate of remission must be set 12 months in advance and must be in its own specific instrument that is disallowable by the Assembly. This is a better approach and recognises that this is part of the scheme. And the Assembly, as I said, if it wishes, can disallow it.
As I have said, this amendment, as well as the requirements for determining the codes, is subject to transitional provisions to ensure that the determinations made for this year are valid. We need them to come into place as soon as the act commences next Thursday. These provisions simply facilitate and put beyond doubt any arguments that could be made in ACAT to question the validity of the instruments.
The final amendment is to prevent the increase of the lease variation charge by regulation coming into effect until the six-sitting day period has elapsed, to ensure that the Assembly approves of the regulation before it comes into effect. Again, this amendment has been inserted as a response to the issues raised in the scrutiny of bills report and ensures that a tax cannot be imposed on someone without the authority of the Assembly behind it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video