Page 2206 - Week 07 - Thursday, 27 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
recognise their significance to Canberra and believe the ACT government has a role to play in ensuring that they are enjoyed by future generations. We have concerns about the way the City Renewal Authority has dealt with some businesses during this period. With regard to this legislation, the concern is also mentioned in the scrutiny report:
It is not clear to the committee why building owners should be required to meet the costs of revitalisation works which are not reflected in an increase in the value of buildings themselves but provide a broader public amenity or add to the value of proximate public works.
The businesses are already buckling from high rates, taxes, fees and charges, including a city centre marketing and improvement levy. Owners are essentially being asked to pay twice—once for the levy that is supposed to cover capital works, then a second time for all the works themselves. In 2018-19 nearly $600,000 of the levy was spent on building waste enclosures for the Sydney and Melbourne buildings. Surely money can be found to ensure that the building is painted consistently and that minor repairs can be carried out if $600,000 can be found for those waste enclosures. We do not believe that the ACT government should be burdening businesses with another expense while they are struggling to keep the doors open.
I note that the implementation of this policy and the revitalisation plan is still some time away. I also understand that, despite the fact that a particular paint colour has been recommended by the Heritage Council for years, the City Renewal Authority has now changed that recommended paint colour. This, of course, causes some frustration to people who have spent money complying with the Heritage Council paint colour and are now being told that there is a new preferred historic paint colour for that building.
The devil is going to be in the detail. It is also going to be in how much money the ACT government contributes to this public amenity. We also need to recognise that there are many property owners and businesses that are doing it tough and may not be able to afford additional works. There are other property owners and businesses that have already invested significantly in amenity upgrades to the Sydney and Melbourne buildings. We have to respect the investments that these people have made already. We do not want to see a heavy-handed tactic by the City Renewal Authority forcing people to spend more money when the ACT government is not necessarily willing to put money in. This has to be a collaborative approach. That is why we support the principle of this, but we need to make sure that it is undertaken in a very reasonable way.
I note that the management plan is a disallowable instrument and therefore will be subject to scrutiny of this place if we so choose. I encourage all members of this place, particularly the opposition and any crossbench members of the future Assembly, to consider whether these management plans are correct and, if not, to consider moving disallowance of such a plan. Let me reiterate that we support the intentions, but we have to make sure that a wise approach is taken by this government and future governments.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.16): The Greens support this bill. The Canberra community has been debating the futures of the Sydney and Melbourne
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video