Page 3065 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
public service staffing was at record highs. But the simple fact is that the Liberal Party’s love of cuts, especially cuts to the public sector in this city, means at the moment that there is less demand for space for workers. That is not about the LVC; that is about the Liberal Party’s job cuts. That is what that is about—job cuts by the Liberals. That is their reason for being—to cut jobs. That is why they exist. That is how they get their jollies in politics—to cut jobs. They love it, and that is exactly the approach we have seen, and the implications of that are flowing through the territory economy.
It is a simple point that the policies of those opposite will not change. They will continue to be a party that advocates public sector job cuts. They will continue to be a party that advocates giving a small section of Canberra property owners a tax break paid for by everyone else. But that will not fix the underlying problem—that is, a lack of demand for commercial office space at this point in time by the Liberals cutting jobs in our economy.
The government recognises that when developments deliver things for the community, this should be recognised in the proportion of the LVC captured through the unearned windfall gain that comes from a lease variation and that that should be put back into the community. That can come in many different forms, and we have supported various LVC remissions to incorporate high standards of urban design, support adaptable housing in projects, and improve environmental performance of buildings. That is the sort of targeted remission that gets an outcome for the community, and we are certainly looking at and have implemented a range of options to support those public benefits.
The other thing we have committed to and we continue to do budget to budget is allocate the proceeds of the lease variation charge into urban improvement projects right across the city. The question for the Leader of the Opposition is this: when he cuts this tax and hands that money back to developers, does he think there is going to be an immediate reduction in the prices of all housing in the city because the developers, out of the goodness of their hearts, are not going to keep any of that tax cut by way of increased profit? Does he think they will pass it on to consumers? Of course they will! There will be no profiteering, no super profits! That will not happen!
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, you will have your turn.
MR BARR: The unearned windfall gain that is generated by the lease variation has to go to the developer. None of that can be shared with the community. That is the Liberal Party’s position. Then they are left with a revenue hole, and there has been very little explanation as to how that hole will be filled. But it will need to be filled or services will need to be cut. Then there is the impact on the range of urban renewal projects and urban improvement projects being funded out of the lease variation charge right across this city in every part of Canberra. In every part of Canberra, there are urban improvement projects funded by the lease variation charge, because it is fair and is an equitable return on the windfall gain for that money to go back into the community by way of urban improvement projects. That is fair and that is reasonable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video