Page 1056 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
… ensure developers pay a charge commensurate with the increase in the value through the additional bundle of rights granted through the change in use.
I further quote:
There are sound conceptual and policy reasons to exclude the on-site improvements and demolition costs, as:
• this is consistent with the underlying philosophy of betterment. The model is intended to capture only the change in value of land due to the additional rights and privileges granted; and
• while a properly constructed charge reflecting increase in the value of land should not distort investment decisions, incorporating on-site improvements and demolition costs into the charge will distort decisions, and provide perverse incentives.
The government has already acted to provide further remission from the lease variation charge. The Chief Minister’s stimulus package announcement provides for an increased remission of the lease variation charge as a result of desire to provide an even greater incentive for development to occur.
In conclusion, I say, Mr Smyth, “Nice try”—to try and bring in this particular issue that is not particularly related to the extension of time bill which we are debating this morning. The stimulus package has many elements, as you are aware. What you are proposing would fundamentally change the basis of the lease variation charge and move away from those principles and the underlying philosophy of a betterment tax. For this reason, the government will not be supporting your amendment this morning. And it would set a pretty bad precedent today if you drop an amendment in five minutes before the start of the debate.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Barr, you are referring to Mr Smyth’s amendment?
MR BARR: Yes. The government will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s amendment. It would also, as I say, set a very bad precedent in relation to how debates are conducted in this place if a matter of this significance is dropped on the Assembly with no notice, even requiring leave of the place to be debated. I do not think that is particularly good practice. Frankly, if Mr Smyth were serious about pursuing this issue, he would have sought to at least raise this or give an indication of his intentions to the government last week.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.30): I will not be supporting this amendment. I think it is quite a different matter to the extension of time matter that the bill seeks to address. The lease variation charge is a rather separate matter. They obviously all relate to a certain industry, but if we are going to have a serious debate about the lease variation charge, we should do it in that way, not under the cover of this bill.
That said, the Greens have long supported the lease variation charge. We believe it is appropriate that the community receive some benefit from a change in lease. It is quite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video