Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 152 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
presented. We now have a situation whereby, if we approve this bill today, we will have a general level of remission of 75 per cent, and then, if you like, you could have a remission on the remission. That is the effect of these changes today. That is not a situation which we are prepared to support and we will not be supporting this bill.
I am very disappointed in the decisions today that a number of members have taken. I am disappointed because this does not resolve the problem. It does not resolve the problem of using a general remission to achieve a specific outcome. We had the opportunity today to amend the land act to use remission of change of use charge in a targeted way, in a specific way; in a way which actually would have helped achieve the outcomes that we, as a community, sought to achieve in development and land use planning in the territory.
Instead, Mr Speaker, we have gone down the path of saying it does not matter about the quality of your development, it does not matter about where you choose to redevelop or develop, it does not matter how you go about putting forward and putting together those proposals; we will give you a subsidy. It is a crude, sledgehammer approach to incentive in the development industry, one which this Assembly should be moving away from. Instead of doing that, we should be saying that we will use targeted remission. Unfortunately, that opportunity has now been lost.
The Labor Party will not be supporting this bill today, but I put on record that the Labor Party will continue to seek a targeted form of remission and change of use charge that actually meets the outcomes that we, as a community, desire in relation to planning and development in Canberra.
Question put:
That this bill, as amended, be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Ayes 8 Noes 7 Mrs Burke Mr Rugendyke Mr Berry Mr Stanhope Mr Cornwell Mr Smyth Mr Corbell Ms Tucker Mr Humphries Mr Stefaniak Mr Hargreaves Mr Kaine Mr Moore Mr Osborne Mr Quinlan
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Financial Management (Amendment) Bill 1998
Debate resumed from 23 September 1998, on motion by Mr Osborne:That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE
(4.41): Mr Speaker, I need to record from the outset that I cannot support this bill. I cannot support this bill because in accounting terms it is quite meaningless. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .