Page 1049 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the DA process. Another problem with the LVC remains that the schedules, particularly for commercial, are out of line with the market. The lack of recognition of the owner’s economic position and the value before—land and added value of improvements—will mean that it will have a limited real effect and is unlikely to result in cranes on the skyline anywhere in the future.
As to the EOT fees, I do not believe that the legislative amendments proposed, as I have said, address the real problem of the massive fees accumulated by the earlier leases. Very substantial debts will remain. While future debts will accumulate at a slower rate for these leases, the issue of the huge earlier debt remains. Further, the problem for the earlier leases is that, unlike the residential leases sold by the LDA, there has been a significant decline in the value of commercial industrial leases since the early leases were sold, for instance, in Fyshwick and Hume. We are told that in some cases the value drop has been as much as 70 per cent. Part of the reason for the decline in values has been the push by the LDA to flood the market in these areas at substantially reduced reserve prices. So there are a number of issues here which need to be addressed.
The bill is inferior to what is required. The bill claims to give relief for business and members of the community, but it does not really give them what they need for the vast bulk of these projects to go ahead. We saw this with two motions that were moved in this place recently—one for a waiver on commence and complete charges on the Calwell pool development and the other on a bulk-billing medical centre in Conder.
The government needs to explain why, for projects like this—you would hardly call them high-end residential or commercial developments, but they are delivering substantial pieces of community infrastructure—there seems to me, and to the local community as well, to be a double standard at work here. It seems, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be the convention from this Labor-Greens government these days that they are left with supporting inferior and compromised solutions. Hence for this reason I will be moving to amend the bill to make sure that we get a better outcome.
I thank the Treasurer for the briefing which came late on Friday afternoon. As a consequence of that, it took me some time to work through and get an amendment, which I will seek leave from the Assembly to move, but I think there is an opportunity to listen to the community fully. There is an opportunity to make the stimulus actually work to the benefit of all—that is, the community, the workers and industry. Indeed, the government will benefit from making it happen.
We know that in the joint industry submission to the ACT government for regulatory and process reform in the best interests of Canberra, February 2014, called “Call to Action”, they recommended that the government review exactly these things. But let us get it right. The recommendation was that the ACT government allow offsets for existing improvements, demolition and on-site, off-site work for section 277 chargeable variations while retaining the 25 per cent remission. Again, it is right up-front in their submission to the government’s review process. It is certainly something that the industry know are hurting them. The government, I think, by attempting to do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video