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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2010) . . Page.. 2965 ..


MR SESELJA: Continuing with this obsession on the committee report—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you are not helping.

MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bit that we did hear from Ms Hunter that went anywhere near the motion was saying that industry is comfortable. So it is worth reviewing what industry has said. I refer to the HIA letter, where it said: “It’s generating a wave of uncertainty leading to a mad rush for valuations and lodgement of applications causing significant delays and inconvenience in advance of the new system.”

The Independent Property Group said: “The logic to determine these numbers appears to fail simple mathematics and appears not to have taken into consideration the significant costs and lengthy delays a developer does ordinarily experience as they negotiate the planning system, public consultation and a possible ACAT appeals process.”

The Australian Property Institute stated: “It’s becoming apparent that as the proposed system evolves, there is a philosophical shift from capturing the value increment resulting from Crown Lease variations to a system of taxing development and urban renewal.”

The HIA, in another contribution, stated that it will prevent development and redevelopment from occurring. We have the Property Council saying: “Increasing the CUC as proposed will stifle redevelopment activity, resulting in a significant loss of associated revenues, thereby undermining the economic and revenue rationale for the proposed codification.”

It is no wonder Ms Hunter did not want to get specific because on the only thing she got specific on, she was completely wrong. She said that industry is comfortable—apart from the Property Council, the HIA, the Australian Property Institute, the Independent Property Group. Apart from them, they seem all pretty comfortable with it. If we are going to have a debate, let us have a serious debate that actually looks at what is being said. What is being said in this motion is that there is a process at work. It has the potential to affect urban infill. It has the potential to affect a number of things. There is a codification process. There is also a change in the approach as to how the government collects the tax.

They say that is as a result of a deal or arrangement. Those are the Treasurer’s words. Those are the Treasurer’s words, which imply significant bad faith on the part of someone. I do not accept that that is true unless that is proven. It is the Treasurer who has made the allegation. It is the Treasurer who has made the allegation about a deal or an arrangement. We have got this situation and the motion reflects that. It reflects that the Treasurer claims that through the deal or arrangement they are not collecting all of the tax. It talks about the codification process; it talks about the uncertainty; and it calls on the government to provide the information.

Apparently, Labor and the Greens do not like that. As I say, judging from the contribution to the debate, particularly from the planning minister and the Greens’


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