Page 2481 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Seselja: So was it corrupt? Was it a corrupt deal or what?
MS GALLAGHER: There was no evidence of corruption, as you will know, Mr Seselja, from reading the audit report on this. But arrangements or agreements had been entered into where a flat fee was being paid and we know who benefited from that. It was not the renters. It was not the homeowners, as Mr Seselja thinks will be on the receiving end of fixing the system. It was not them that benefited under the flat fee arrangement, Mr Seselja. There was no noticeable reduction in house prices because developers were paying $1,750 per unit for a lease variation charge or a change of use charge. There was no windfall gain to the consumer then, Mr Seselja.
Mrs Dunne: Because it was a charge, not a tax.
MS GALLAGHER: Well, thanks for that. Someone who has not been involved in any of this at all believes that is because it was a charge and not a tax. There is the answer we have been looking for for two years. That is the reason. That is the reason why it was not on-passed, because it was a charge and not a tax. What the government has had to do is ensure that the law as agreed by this place is being followed, and that is what we have done. So rectification has fixed the issue that we identified and now we move to codifying those changes and implementing a new framework to deal with this that is open and transparent and more information than ever before will come to this place. There is no Assembly involvement in any of the arrangements under change of use charge—no involvement at all. What you will get under this system is that the remissions will come to this place as disallowable instruments. When any waivers are given under this scheme they will come to this place and will be placed on a register for information.
I do not know how more open and transparent anyone can get. But that is the system that is going to be in place and the subsidy to industry will be clear for all to see. There are good reasons why the Assembly may approve those determinations by the government, and those reasons are outlined in the criteria that are established through some of the amendments Ms Hunter moves today. They are around particular policy outcomes that I think everybody in this place agrees with. They are around heritage. They are around environmental sustainability. They are around community purpose. They are around particular planning zones. They are areas where we have already provided change of use charge without any opposition from anyone in this place. But it will be clearer and it will be more transparent. We have through our budget in the last two years exempted petrol stations, GP surgeries, community childcare centres, and the change of use for C and D grade office building into residential also gets a remission in this.
Mr Seselja: Is that as an incentive? That is an incentive?
MS GALLAGHER: Yes, it is an incentive, exactly. It is an incentive, Mr Seselja.
Mr Seselja: As opposed to the disincentive that you are providing across the board?
MS GALLAGHER: Mr Seselja, I do not think it is that unusual that governments provide incentives to see particular policy outcomes delivered. That is not unusual and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video