Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 170..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
are looking for and which the private sector is saying it is willing to make an investment in because it is for its direct benefit as well as the broader public benefit.
It will also encourage advocacy to assist the government to prioritise its activities-so we will have an advocacy role, representing businesses in the city centre-and it will help encourage higher standards of private sector presentation.
In closing, I would like to address the issue of the Melbourne and Sydney buildings. The Melbourne and Sydney buildings are not owned by one individual lessee. Those buildings are owned by up to 20 to 30 individual lessees. Each is responsible for their little part of the colonnade, their little part of the building. You cannot get them to coordinate their painting and cleaning, let alone anything else. This mechanism will give us the opportunity to coordinate that and lift the look of those buildings as well.
Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. The government will be supporting the bill.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The minister's time has expired. I call Mrs Dunne.
Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was closing the debate on behalf of the government.
MR SPEAKER: Point taken, but it is the Treasurer's bill.
Mr Corbell: The Treasurer asked me to take carriage of the debate.
MR SPEAKER: I regret to inform you that you cannot transfer the provisions of the standing orders.
Mr Corbell: I stand by your ruling, Mr Speaker.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.28): Welcome again to the socialist utopia of the Stanhope Labor government, supported by Simon Corbell and elements of the property council. Just because some elements of the property council think that this is a good idea, Mr Speaker, does not mean that the Liberal Party has to come on board. I think it has been quite fascinating to sit and listen to this debate. The words that kept popping into my mind were the words that Mr Barr used on a number of occasions last year when he talked about business welfare. If we are talking about business welfare, this is business welfare. It is going to be a levy that will benefit very few. It will be a tax levied on a whole range of people who will see no benefit from it.
What benefit will the lawyers, barristers and dentists in Hobart Place who will be levied in this regard see from this proposal? Restaurateurs and people who own bars and cafes possibly will benefit from it. If a group of restaurateurs and bar owners and operators in Civic got together and voluntarily decided that they would put a subvention into a trust and do this sort of thing, everyone would stand back and applaud, because that is what a real city heart levy would be about; the people who would benefit.