Page 1491 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(d) the LVC’s negative impact on the Government’s Urban Improvement Fund as a result of this underperformance; and

(e) the LVC’s negative impact on the housing sector; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) provide all documents and data in relation to revenue generated (or not) by the LVC since its inception;

(b) provide all documents and data in relation to the financial status of the Urban Improvement Fund and projects that it has funded; and

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is nice to speak to a full audience for a change. I hope they all stay, but I suspect that none of them want to debate the lease variation charge, and that is a disappointment. It is a very poor attitude from those opposite to just walk out on this very important issue.

The lease variation charge’s recent financial performance in the December quarter 2012 consolidated financial report is very, very poor. Since the new arrangements in the 2011-12 budget, revenue has not met target on one occasion. It is interesting that after the first year the minister said there were not enough quarters in for him to make a decision. Well, we have six quarters now, and none of those six quarters have met the projected revenue. Indeed, the actual revenue received in 2011-12 was just $8.7 million, down from the predicted $22.4 million that was expected. That is $13.7 million less that the government has for its urban improvement fund.

The 2012-13 September quarter received $1.3 million, $4.5 million below target. As of 31 December of this financial year, only $2.1 million was received. That was $7.7 million below target for the half year and not nearly enough to get to the expected $23.5 million, which has now been revised down by the Treasurer to $19.5 million.

There is no better illustration of underperformance than this sad and sorry record. In the December quarter 2011, rather than $11.2 million for the first six months of that year, receipts totalled only $4.7 million. I think it is fair to say that this tax is the ACT Labor equivalent to their federal counterpart’s mineral resource rent tax. As the Treasurer said in his own words, developers make windfall profits when a lease is varied for redevelopment. Well, that is true, but only if the redevelopments go ahead. We now know that the redevelopments are not going ahead. Indeed, much of the money that initially came in was, of course, for developments, applications for which were put in under the old scheme before the changes occurred. What we have got since that time is the real state of affairs this government has foisted upon the people of the ACT.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video