Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2010) . . Page.. 2948 ..

It is information that is important so that we can get to the bottom of how and when and if this deal was arrived at. What kind of tax is being levied right now? Will that change on 1 July? Will that change when we have codification? When will we see codification?

These are the questions that need answering. They have not been answered by the government. The significant uncertainty of this massive new tax on units and on homes is causing great consternation. I commend the motion to the Assembly and I call on the minister to provide us with that information. (Time expired.)

MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (5.24): The Greens do not support the motion as proposed by Mr Seselja today, and I will be moving an amendment so that the motion better reflects the current situation and pays due regard to the committee process.

On the change of use charge, the most important point to make is that the Greens support the revised and corrected application of the change of use charge. The move corrects an error and applies the law correctly, as was intended by this place when it was passed. We do recognise that there is an issue to be addressed in ensuring that we do not create an unreasonable disincentive or barrier to urban infill development, with the associated environmental benefits that can be achieved from higher density.

The original motion, as moved by Mr Seselja, is essentially a rehash of the Liberals’ dissenting estimates report, and it is disappointing that, rather than engaging in the estimates committee process to achieve a productive outcome, the Liberals are now moving a motion to essentially the same effect as what would have been agreed to by the government in its response to the majority report.

Mr Seselja: Did you actually read the motion? That’s an ignorant comment, even from you. That’s a really ignorant comment, Meredith.

MS HUNTER: What they are doing here is trying to get a government response to the dissenting report and effectively saying that they do not support the committee process—

Mr Seselja: We are trying to get answers that you do not want to see.

MS HUNTER: Not just the estimates—

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Ms Hunter, one minute, please. Mr Seselja, I cannot hear Ms Hunter because of your constant interjections—

Mr Seselja: On that point, on a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the first five minutes of my speech I had Mr Barr shouting me down. I could barely hear myself think, and I did not hear you intervene, so I would ask you to show due consideration to both sides when there are interjections and show the kind of courtesy to us as that you are showing to Ms Hunter.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Seselja. Ms Hunter, you have the floor.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video