Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2010) . . Page.. 2956 ..
and that there is unmet need. They are questioning a legitimate revenue stream—that is, the change of use charge—which everyone in this place has accepted and supported for some time.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.50): The opposition will not be agreeing to the amendment because, again, it is just a lazy, compliant amendment. The amendment does not add anything to the debate. In fact, it stifles debate, which, of course, is what the leader of the Greens wants when it comes to holding the government to account. The Treasurer has already changed the government’s response from the document which she tabled yesterday. Let us look at the amendment. The amendment says:
the Select Committee on Estimates 2010-2011 recommended that—
There are two recommendations—recommendations (i) and (ii)—and then in paragraph (b) it says:
the Government has agreed to:
these recommendations …
That is true. It says “agreed” against (i) and (ii). Then, after “the Government has agreed to”, it says:
provide a full evaluation of …
That is not what the response says. Nowhere on page 5 of the Treasurer’s response to the Select Committee on Estimates does it say that it will provide this information. What it says in its response to recommendation 3—which calls for an evaluation of the impacts as part of the codification to ensure that it does not create an unreasonable barrier to urban densification—is that it will do this work. The government says:
A full evaluation of the impacts of the codification of Change of Use Charge is included in the project work plan.
Two rounds of community consultations have been held … The final report from consultants will include the outcomes … a cost benefit analysis and a regulatory impact statement.
It goes on to say:
In addition, further economic analysis and specific quantitative modelling is underway to examine the economic impact of codification on the Territory.
Then it says:
The Government will consider these reports later in the year, along with advice and analysis from Treasury on implementation options for codification.
Nowhere does it say, as Ms Hunter’s motion asserts, that the government has agreed to provide a full evaluation of these impacts. It just does not say that. If I am wrong,