Page 1055 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The minister quite rightly said these fees were put in place to stop land banking. But he has never been able to identify a single case of land banking. I do not know anybody who purchases a block of land and says, “If I make my way through the global recession, if I then tack a couple of years on the end, I’ll somehow get a better deal.” They are paying fees and charges to their banks, and holding costs. They are paying considerable fees and charges to the government. So why would you deliberately set out to make your project unviable in the hope that in the long term something better might come along? I do not know any business that operates in that manner. The fact that the government has not been able to make the case by producing a single clear case of land banking undermines the minister’s case.
If we want to get this right, if we want to ensure that the industry can go ahead, if we want to protect the jobs and if we want to keep the economy moving along, the amendment that I move will help do that far more significantly than what the government is currently proposing.
Of course, there is then the dilemma between part (1) and part (2) of 277A. Part (1) says that an improvement must not be taken into account; then part (2) says that an existing improvement may be taken into account. The government might want to have a think about that long term as well.
The easy thing today would be to pass my amendment and remove part (1) of 277A. It will have an immediate impact on the economy; it will have a much bigger impact on confidence; and it will allow the industry to go ahead.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (11.25): In responding to Mr Smyth’s amendment, the first point to raise is the level of discourtesy associated with dropping this amendment just prior to the commencement today. The government was prepared to give Mr Smyth leave to allow this to be debated, and I would like that acknowledged. I am sure I will be on the receiving end of a lecture at some point in the next 2½ years, but in this instance I think the issues that Mr Smyth raises are worth discussing. There is no doubt about it. They were raised with the government in the context of not so much the extension of time system but debate over the lease variation charge.
The first point to make is that this bill is seeking to amend the EOT system; it is not designed to alter the lease variation charge, which is what Mr Smyth’s amendment seeks to do. The amendment proposes a fundamental shift in the way the lease variation charge is calculated. The government has considered these matters and will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s amendment today.
Currently, existing buildings and structures on a site are excluded from the calculation of a before and an after valuation on lease variation charges under section 277. This is the only fair way to calculate the true value of an existing block of land. Not including existing structures in the valuation of the site will, according to the Macroeconomics report into the review of the LVC system:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video