Page 506 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and heritage conservation. The Greens amendments also made the system clearer and easier for industry to apply in practice. The amendments ensured the scheme is open and transparent by requiring that all remissions and the values used to assess the charge are placed on the public register.
They required that the Treasurer must obtain and consider the advice of a valuer accredited by the Australian Property Institute in determining the amounts in the codes. The amendments required that improvements on the land are not taken into account in assessing the charge and, instead, any additional cost or market reality is addressed through the remission provisions. The amendments required a clearer legislative framework governing the operation of the scheme, 12 months’ notice of the general rate of remission, and that no specific increases to the charge can be made without the approval of the Assembly.
The idea of sustainability remissions is to provide a real financial incentive for developers to design and deliver for good sustainability outcomes, to tip the balance in favour of sustainable projects so that we can start to see these kinds of innovative developments coming up around our city. I know there are developers working in the local industry who want to innovate and push the boundaries and experiment with new sustainable design and construction who would welcome a scheme which provides a real incentive to do so.
In the new package, the sustainability remissions are an addition to the other reductions. There is something of an incentive. However it remains to be seen how effective they will be over the course of the next two years given the other remissions in place that are aiming to stimulate development more generally.
Again, since we last debated the issue three weeks ago, the government has announced that it will be simplifying and significantly reducing the extension of time charges or commence and complete fees, depending on which way you describe them. From 1 April, extension of time fees will be applied on completion breaches only and not on commencement breaches. Fees will not be charged on the first four years of breach. From the fifth year, extension of time fees will be billed annually at one times the general rates bill.
Debts that have accrued since 1 July 2012 will be waived, and for debts occurring from 1 April this year the fee will be determined based on one times the general rates. People who have paid their extension of time fees during the waiver period will be entitled to a refund so that those who have and have not paid the fees during the period are treated equally under the reforms. I think this is a welcome move. The Greens agree that there were some issues with the scheme. It was intended to prevent land banking, but we have seen cases where developers have been legitimately delayed.
When we debated the issue of commence and complete fees in October 2013 in this place, I put forward an amendment calling on the government to review the scheme and to report to the Assembly by the end of this financial year. That amendment was agreed to. I am pleased the changes have been brought forward, and they seem like a sensible reform. Under the new scheme there is still a disincentive for developers to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video