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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 11 Hansard (Thursday, 21 October 2010) . . Page.. 4864 ..

genuinely believed we had to respond to. We have fixed that. As part of that we are expecting extra revenue.

In terms of moving to codification, which I think is where Mr Seselja’s question actually lies, there is currently a number of pieces of work being done around the economic impact, around a cost-benefit analysis, by Professor Nicholls and Professor John Piggott. I have already given commitments that it will be released in a report to the Assembly around the move to codification of the change of use charge system. The figures outlined in the budget simply indicate that applying the law as it was intended to apply—

Opposition members interjecting—

MS GALLAGHER: If those opposite want me to break the law, which is what you are asking me to do, because the 185 per cent increase across the board estimates—

Mr Seselja: Is that what you’ve been doing for the last eight years?

Mr Hargreaves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the imputation from Mr Seselja in interjections across the chamber was that the Deputy Chief Minister—he asked the question: did the Deputy Chief Minister break the law in the last few years? I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Seselja: I simply responded to what the Treasurer was saying. She asked whether we were asking her to break the law. If that is the case then that would mean that the government has been breaking the law all this time. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, on the point of order?

Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, it matters not the reasons, Mr Speaker. It is an imputation on the member.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, I do not believe there is a specific point of order. Mr Seselja, please do not interject when the Treasurer is answering. You will have a chance to ask supplementary questions at another time.

MS GALLAGHER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just in conclusion, we did not believe the law was being applied as was originally intended. We have fixed that. The figures in the budget paper merely reflect that decision and how we expect that decision to flow out across the forward estimates.

MR SMYTH: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.

MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Treasurer, how much would revenue have to increase from the change of use charge before you would describe it as a significant increase?

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