Page 2167 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is another serious issue with this legislation. It undermines any efforts to see the redevelopment of some of these buildings. It undermines efforts to see a diversification of housing choice in the city. It does it through a complete lack of regard for commercial realities, because it pretends that a situation exists that does not exist. It says: “We will give you V1 and V2, except for the fact that we are not going to give you V2. We are not going to give you the original value. We are going to pretend that it is something else.”
That goes, I think, to the heart of the poorly thought out nature of this legislation. It is not just bad legislation because it is a massive tax increase, it is bad legislation because it will lead to less certainty, when we were told that it was designed to give us more certainty. That was the big selling point. You have got to take your hat off to the Chief Minister because she has managed to take a principle that most people in industry supported, that of certainty through codification, and stuffed it up so badly that all we get is a large tax increase and no certainty.
The one selling point where industry was actually on board, that it would provide some level of certainty, has actually gone and in fact much of the response—
Mr Barr: This is where the Liberal Party is at now. Industry should write its own tax rates.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Barr.
MR SESELJA: When we put this to officials—
Ms Gallagher: Yes, $10,000. That is what they said they would pay.
MR SPEAKER: Order, members!
MR SESELJA: When we put this to officials and we talked about these particular examples, we kept hearing about the levers, how the government will be able to pull the levers. In that case, with the offers, maybe they would not make that decision to redevelop. So we will just reduce the charge. That is easy. That is simple. So the government—
Mrs Dunne: That is putting the politics back into planning, isn’t it, minister?
MR SESELJA: That is right. So the government can just choose which developments are worthy of going ahead, which developments are worthy of paying tax. This is the definition. It is extraordinary that we have a piece of legislation here—
Ms Gallagher: As opposed to the property industry?
Mrs Dunne: And you are so good at picking winners, aren’t you?
MR SPEAKER: Members!
Ms Gallagher: I am just trying to follow the law, Mrs Dunne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video