Page 2482 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this is one of the ways the government and the Assembly can actually use what limited powers we have to determine those particular outcomes in the private sector, to facilitate them. I would think that those opposite, with the philosophy and the ideology that they come from, would be supportive of measures like that, that would seek to encourage particular outcomes and provide incentives and support where they are warranted.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
Mr Barr interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Barr and Mr Seselja, will you stop having a conversation across the chamber.
MS GALLAGHER: Madam Deputy Speaker, we are very happy to support the amendments moved by the Greens. The issue of improvements is an important one and I think one of the points I did not raise in the debate when we debated the opposite amendment, which was to allow for improvements, was that improvements are not part of the current legislation and, as the law reads currently, improvements probably should never have been part of the consideration. But custom and practice, precisely because we did not have the system that we are implementing tonight, has allowed them to be taken into consideration. A further subsidy to industry that has never been upfront and clear and allowed for under the legislation has become custom and practice.
That is exactly what these amendments and the legislation that we are debating tonight rule out. The framework that these laws operate in is going to be very clear for everybody who seeks to change their lease, for whatever outcome it is. There will be no more fixed fee situations other than what codification allows. There will be no more arrangements of custom and practice that become established and entrenched to the point that, when you seek to recover them, they are opposed like we see on the issue of improvements.
The amendments which the Greens are moving improve the bill overall. The government has worked very closely to make sure that we do not create a system where we will be constantly needing to amend this legislation. Unlike Mr Seselja, we do not believe we will be back to debate this legislation. Indeed, I hope we are not, based on the work that has been put into it, the rigour that is behind it and the analysis that has been involved in this work. Eminent professionals who specialise in this particular area have all analysed thoroughly the government’s plans and all of them support it. Indeed, the only people who do not support it are the Canberra Liberals, for reasons only they know, and the property industry—and we know their reasons. They do not want to pay any more than they are currently paying, and we understand that. It is understandable that business would seek to minimise the costs they pay to government.
But as a government we have a responsibility too to make sure that when additional development rights are purchased on a community asset they are paid for and that they are paid for by the people who are going to benefit from that purchase. That
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video