Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 115 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

to support my bill in principle. The reason is that my bill allows for targeted remission. The whole purpose of this bill, as it has now been agreed to in principle by the Assembly, is to recognise that the de facto rate of the change of use charge is 100 per cent, but that may be remitted by 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent or even 100 per cent through a disallowable instrument tabled by the minister of the day in this place and subject to disallowance by this place. My bill proposes a targeted remission process.

If you support the amendment proposed by Mr Smyth, you will be allowing an across-the-board remission of 75 per cent, plus potential further remission if you support the other provisions of my bill. That is a nonsensical proposition. The only way to have an effective remission scheme is to have a base rate of 100 per cent and then have a mechanism for remission below 100 per cent in a targeted way subject to veto by this place. I say to those members who are tempted to support 75 per cent to consider that this legislation we have already agreed to in principle allows for remission below 100 per cent-at 75 per cent or 50 per cent or lower-where it is deemed by this place to be in the public interest. That is the way we should be going ahead. We should not be saying, "Let us build into this legislation a blank remission." It is inappropriate, and we should not support this amendment.

MS TUCKER (12.20): I support what Mr Corbell has just said. I do not know whether Mr Rugendyke was listening when I responded and Michael Moore responded.

Mr Rugendyke: I was listening.

MS TUCKER: He says he was listening. The arguments about lack of stability have been well responded to by Mr Corbell. If we have 100 per cent, with the possibility for remissions, we will have stability, so that is not an argument now.

Mrs Burke spoke about being naive about the reality of the industry. We are being presented with the opportunity to give remissions. That will be possible. If the government is saying that some developments will not occur because of the 100 per cent, they will have every opportunity to do something about that. The minister can give a remission of 25 per cent, 50 per cent or whatever. You will be able to argue for that in this place. This legislation makes it a transparent, open process.

I have an amendment, which by the look of the way people are talking here is not going to get up, which would bring in more detail and more criteria to guide the minister in granting remissions. My amendment says:

... the Minister may only make a determination under subsection (1) if the Territory would derive a substantial, environmental, social or economic benefit from the change of use of the land.

If the minister can show that benefit, he can do it, and we can debate that. What do we want to achieve from this? Do we want to service the industry as Mr Hird said, or do we want to service the territory? That is the question. If you support Mr Corbell and you support my amendment to what Mr Corbell is doing, you will have a clear set of criteria we all support. We want benefit to the territory. We do not want to service the industry just for the sake of it.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .