Page 235 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I take the opportunity at this point to talk about the numbers and what we have seen so far after the introduction of the revised charge. We are now on track to achieve the estimated revenue target this year, and I must say that that does not really surprise me: the 75 per cent discount is very attractive and, given that industry does have the certainty of knowing that that discount will be reduced on 1 July, it obviously makes business sense to lodge applications and to continue to pursue redevelopments.
This charge has been extensively considered, evaluated and debated in this place. I think it is worth while reflecting on the history of the issue just briefly. First of all, as Mr Barr has said, this is not a new charge. It has been around for decades. But we did see the industry wanting to codify the previous change of use charge. This was, of course, a very sensible proposal; it made the scheme administratively much easier to operate for the government and provided certainty for the industry. The only downside for the industry was that it became clear that very modest amounts were being paid on developments and that they were not in any way linked to the area where the development was being undertaken. A flat fee was being charged whether your development was in the outer parts of our city or the very inner city areas. It was not meant to be about paying fair value for the development rights that the community was granting developers in an open, transparent manner, so it really became apparent that this issue had to be moved forward.
At that point, the property industry realised that yes, they would have to pay fair value for something that they had previously enjoyed, as I said, with that flat fee, which really was quite modest. It depended on where the development was, obviously, but generally across the board I think that many in the industry accepted that it was quite a modest charge.
What happened then, as I said, was this. The industry were on board. They did want this codified, but in these matters the devil is always in the detail and it came down to a difference of opinion over the schedules that were produced. Extensive research, consultancies and so forth were undertaken by the government to carefully look at this matter.
The Greens’ view remains the same as it was last year: we are happy to record our support for what is a fair charge that does provide important revenue for the territory and that allows us to ensure that vital government services are properly resourced.
It is concerning that the Liberal Party keep saying that the charge should not be imposed, yet we have not heard from them what their alternative policy is. They also—
Mr Barr: I would not hold your breath for that.
MS HUNTER: Yes; thank you, Mr Barr. And there is no alternative source of revenue to deliver the services that Canberra depends upon if we take this away. Again, we just do not know how they would plug this gap, despite the fact that they would need to explain why they do not think it is fair that the community gets a benefit from the extra development rights that are being granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video