Page 3669 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that there is significant value of the pool project to the community of Calwell and the broader Tuggeranong area. We have certainly had discussions before about the supply or otherwise of pools in Tuggeranong. I do not intend to rehash that, but I think that there is undoubtedly value in this.
Certainly the Calwell Residents Association, whom I have met with, and the Tuggeranong Community Council have been strong advocates for bringing new businesses to the shops at Calwell. I imagine they are quite supportive of this project and I have no doubt there will be a high demand for a swim school. Whilst Tuggeranong perhaps is not so much these days known as the nappy valley, there is no doubt there are still many young families in the Tuggeranong region, and a facility like this will undoubtedly be of value to the community.
I certainly think that there is an issue with the quantum of commence and complete fees. It certainly seems that when you put together the two numbers that Mr Wall has identified in his motion, over $400,000 in fees would undoubtedly have a considerable impact on what is a nearly $5 million project. I think the proportion and the quantum are quite evident to anybody who stops and has a look at that. So I certainly agree with that concern.
I think it is one of those cases where the intent of commence and complete fees is correct. The intent is to stop land banking, and that is quite an appropriate policy position to be taking. But clearly there are circumstances—and I have had a couple of people come and see me who have raised concerns about particular cases—where perhaps that broad and good policy intent of the particular circumstances has meant that there is a good reason to remit those fees or the policy has not actually worked.
This goes to some of the points in my amendments, which are coming. I am sorry for the late circulation, colleagues; it has been one of those mornings. But one of the things that I have identified in my amendments is a call for the government to undertake a review of the operation of commence and complete fees, because I have had other constituents approach me about this and express their concern, and I think it would be a timely thing to do to look at whether the system is operating effectively and to consider whether there are improvements that could be made or adjustments to the implementation of the fees.
Of course, there is always the safety valve of the discretion of the Treasurer to waive fees in these circumstances. I do not intend to particularly comment on the merits of this particular one today, whether or not the Treasurer should waive the fees. I think that the case has been set out. I am always mindful—and it is something that I see even more so, operating as the minister—that there are often great complexities to some of these stories. And I do not wish, with the limited knowledge that I have of this individual case, to form an absolute view in this place.
I think it is problematic for the Assembly to come in and make particular calls for particular projects to be given a waiver. I think that is an appropriate discretion for the Treasurer to take. So that is where my amendments go. I broadly have not touched too much of Mr Wall’s motion but have simply omitted clause (f) and noted that on 8 October Kingswim made a written application for the remission of outstanding commence and complete fees relating to the block in Calwell.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video