Page 3675 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR WALL (Brindabella) (11.03): It is welcome to hear that the government has finally taken into account the significant burden that these fees do present to development and investment in the territory. We will be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s proposed amendments, and we look forward to seeing the result of the review and, hopefully, the reduction in fees that will occur following the inquiry.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.04): Just briefly, and for the sake of clarity, I agree with Mr Corbell’s amendment. He has clarified the current situation. I think it is quite appropriate, and certainly the time frame seems more than appropriate to get the work done. So I am supportive of Mr Corbell’s amendment.
Mr Corbell’s amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendments agreed to.
Amendments, as amended, agreed to.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (11.04): I welcome some elements of Mr Rattenbury’s amendments, as amended. It certainly does detract slightly from the core intent of the motion that I brought here today, which was to secure a waiver of the fees for this development in Tuggeranong. The proposal will bring significant benefit to residents of the Tuggeranong area. It was a long-held commitment by the Canberra Liberals during the 2012 election campaign, and one we still stand by today, to see the delivery of another swimming pool facility in the Tuggeranong valley area.
Mr Rattenbury: I think it was in the Lanyon valley, though.
MR WALL: It was in the Lanyon valley, but if there is a private investor that is willing, Mr Rattenbury, to take the risk and take on a project of this calibre on their own, I think that should be encouraged and welcomed in every possible manner by this place.
It is concerning that there has been a watering down of the intent to allow the Treasurer some more time in making this deliberation, and it is a deliberation which I hope he is taking favourably, and that the decision is to ensure that there is growth in development, growth in employment and certainly growth in community benefit for the Calwell shopping precinct.
We will not be supporting the motion as it stands, given that it does detract from the core intent, which was to secure a waiver of fees for this project. But we do wait with bated breath to see what the result and the outcome will be of the Treasurer’s deliberations over the coming weeks as to whether or not he will grant an exemption for this project.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video