Page 2483 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
return needs to be provided to the community, and that is at the heart of the debate. That is what the government believes in and it is what the Greens believe in, although I do not pretend I want to speak for them.
The opposition has failed, apart from supporting the property industry hook, line and sinker, on every single argument they have put to us—every single one, Mr Seselja. That is what you are regurgitating here tonight. The property industry and the Liberals are opposed to it, and you have failed to explain to the community why you think they should get less and why the property industry should get more. That is what you are arguing for. When the property industry was paying virtually nothing for this; when the rivers of gold were running through the redevelopment industry—and they were let’s face it—the fixed fee arrangement made it so good that developers were prepared to pay $500,000 more for a block of land in order to redevelop it because the change of use charge was so low that they could afford to pay $500,000 more than the market value of that land and still make a fortune on the redevelopment.
That is the situation that we are fixing here tonight and it is a very, very important, fundamental part of the leasehold system that we have and the betterment system that has been in place in this territory since 1971 in various forms. The challenge to you, Mr Seselja, is to stand up and explain to the community why you think they should get less and the property industry should get more. That is the difference of opinion between the government and the opposition on this. You have not touched on that in any of your discussion tonight.
The government is pleased, after two years of work and all the analysis that has been put in, that we have reached this point tonight. I would like to thank the Greens for their preparedness to work with us over a substantial period of time, I think probably over the last year in particular but especially the last few weeks in finalising the amendments. I would also like to thank the staff of former ACTPLA who have also assisted, and Treasury, particularly Khalid Ahmed, who has spent a lot of time on the lease variation charge and bringing it to this point, and Tom Warne-Smith and Garrett Purtill, who I am not sure will know what to do with themselves when the lease variation charge is passed tonight.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (8.39): What the Treasurer needs to explain to the community is why she wants them to pay more to buy a home. That is what Katy Gallagher has consistently refused to address. Why do you think that young families should have to pay more, much more, for their units or to buy a home in Canberra? Why do you believe it is a good idea that young families, who are already paying a lot on stamp duty, who are already facing serious pressures, who are already finding it very difficult to get into the housing market, should pay $20,000 more, $30,000 more or $50,000 more for the privilege of buying a home?
Why is it you will not stand up and accept that? Why will you not stand behind that? If you are so keen on this tax, why will you not accept all of the implications of it and look them in the eye and say, “Because I want this tax, I am happy for you to pay more.” But you will not say it. That is at the heart of the dishonesty in the way this has been prosecuted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video