Page 240 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
deleted because the government have not delivered amenity, equity and economic sustainability for our territory, and they have no idea how to do it.
You would almost think this was some sort of thought bubble: “Let’s just call it the fund to look after the urban amenity, the urban improvement fund, and we’ll just pop $22 million in it.” If only it was that easy. That money needs to be accounted for. The minister needs to explain where it is genuinely coming from, whether they will raise taxes to cover it or shift money from other areas, which will therefore suffer, or cut services to cover this debt. Simply, what you cannot do is trust this government or this minister when it comes to delivering these things.
I will just go back to the point again: if this is the perfect tax that apparently has no impact then why would you have any remissions? The minister says it is the transition phase. If it is the perfect tax that does not have any effect, no matter how many documents you want to read, there is no need for a remission. The very fact that the government are bringing this in step by step clearly indicates that they do not believe the rhetoric. They know the true impact that it will have.
It interesting that the minster was able to get some updated figures for the period from 24 January to 8 February, but he still has not told us how many of these developments are developments that have been assessed under the old regime and how many have been assessed under the new regime. Is this money coming from the old system, because we had this enormous draw forward where people sought to be assessed under the old system rather than under the new, and is there a trough that is about to appear in the government’s finances?
Amendment agreed to.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (5.51): I thank members for their contribution to the debate. Of course, one could hardly call Mr Seselja’s and Mr Smyth’s rants a contribution. Mr Seselja masquerades as a champion of those who are first home buyers and renters. He trots out his cronies’ criticism of the government’s fair and economically sound reinvestment in municipal services and infrastructure, a reinvestment that my constituents applaud.
Municipal services are important and, of course, this government takes them very seriously and delivers on a daily basis. Those opposite like to call into question the work of our municipal workers. This is not new. Over time they have called into question our health workers, our teachers and our child protection workers—and the list goes on. And now our hardworking men and women who deliver our municipal services are being criticised. These are services that Mr Seselja and Mr Smyth indicate are so important, yet they will not support the motion that will take the benefits that are accrued through the LVC and re-invest them on behalf of the community.
Those opposite intensely dislike the LVC, no matter that the minister has reiterated it has a very strong basis in economic theory. I thank Ms Hunter for her support and her considered remarks regarding both the LVC and the urban improvement program. We were happy to support her amendment as it did not materially alter the motion. I look forward to the motion passing this afternoon.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video