Page 2477 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011

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

Question put:

That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Hunter from moving her amendments together.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 10

Noes 5

Mr Barr

Ms Gallagher

Mr Coe

Mr Smyth

Dr Bourke

Ms Hunter

Mrs Dunne

Ms Bresnan

Ms Le Couteur

Mr Hanson

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mr Seselja

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Question so resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.

MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (8.15), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 25 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 2546]. These amendments are designed to improve the operation of the scheme and ensure that all the levers are used to get the best outcomes. The amendments reflect the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee and, I believe, strike a better balance between the need for flexibility, given the particular nature of the scheme we are seeking to create, and the need to ensure that it is in fact the parliament that is imposing the tax and that the scope of the task that is being delegated to the Treasurer and the minister is clearly defined with sufficient clarity so that the community can see exactly what the parliament intended the delegated decision makers do and how the scheme is intended to operate.

This is a complicated scheme and one that we cannot borrow from anywhere else. We are unique amongst Australian jurisdictions and I think that while that presents a challenge, it also presents a huge opportunity that is not as readily available anywhere else. The amendments seek to capitalise on this and ensure the maximum efficacy of the scheme. The Greens recognise there may well be some initial difficulties in administration and that there certainly remain some challenges for the delegated decision makers in making the determinations that the parliament is asking of them.

On the specific amendments, the first amendment is to ensure that the scheme is open and transparent and significantly reduces the risk of impropriety. The amendment requires that all valuations used in determining the charge, that is, both the V1 and the V2 calculations as well as the amount of the charge itself, for section 277 variations must be disclosed on the existing disclosure register under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act. This will assist in not only mitigating the chances of similar arrangements coming into place, as we saw prior to rectification last year, but hopefully will also assist in the valuation process, aid consistency, reduce disputes and ultimately the need to go to ACAT.

In addition, all remissions—and I will come back to the detail of these later—must be disclosed as well. This will hopefully ensure that there will be no accusation of under-the-table deals or other impropriety. I should clarify that these provisions do not impact on the proponents’ rights to privacy, as the details of their development

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