Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2010) . . Page.. 2952 ..
The government will not be supporting the motion of Mr Seselja, because we believe it starts with an incorrect premise and a pretty unfair imputation, and the wording of the first paragraph goes to that. It asks the Assembly to note that the government are claiming to have failed to collect the charge because of a deal. We have not—
Mr Smyth: But that is what you said to estimates. Did you mislead estimates?
MS GALLAGHER: No, I did not mislead estimates. We are uncertain—we can speculate about what happened—about what led to the arrangement to institute a fixed flat fee for residential dual occupancies and apartments. That is essentially the issue over which the Minister for Planning has portfolio responsibility, and he will address that when he speaks to the motion. That work is underway, and we have already accepted that we need to update the Assembly around what that work finds when it is completed. We have sought to respond to concern around codification of the charge. Originally, industry came to us seeking codification of the charge; it was actually at their request—
Mr Seselja: Just like the miners, isn’t it?
MS GALLAGHER: I think it was in the Property Council’s—
Mr Seselja: Then you saw an opportunity where you could—
MS GALLAGHER: Sorry, Mr Seselja, I did not get the opportunity to interject all the way through your speech, but, you know—
Mr Seselja: Plenty of others did!
MS GALLAGHER: Poor Mr Seselja. It has been a long week for you, has it not?
Mr Seselja: Maybe you didn’t have anything to say.
MS GALLAGHER: We have got a bit of a way to go so let us try—
Mr Smyth: Not quick enough to think of an interjection, is that the problem?
MS GALLAGHER: Let us try and—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Seselja, Mr Smyth, please remain silent.
MS GALLAGHER: Let us try and work with each other here.
Mr Seselja: A bit slow on the interjections, were you, Katy?
MS GALLAGHER: It did actually come on a little faster than I expected on private member’s day, but anyway. The Property Council originally put it in their budget submission for 2009-10—I can check that, but I am pretty sure that is right—and the issue they were responding to was more about the commercial use of the change of