Page 4441 - Week 12 - Thursday, 26 October 2017

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

support this through the cabinet process, support it on the floor of the Assembly, and now they try to make out as though they are very, very concerned about the outcome.

This is not the way to develop good policy. The lease variation charge is something that we on this side have often talked about. It is a policy that has never raised the amount of revenue that the government said it would. We have also seen remission of the LVC to certain developers worth millions of dollars, in some cases to people aligned with the Labor Party and the labour movement. The Braddon development is just one example of where the charge was levied based on its current use, not on the future use of apartments. It is just appalling. It is something that is benefiting the union movement here in the ACT.

Members interjecting—

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Lee): Members, I cannot hear Ms Lawder.

MS LAWDER: It is a bad tax. It is not bringing in the revenue. We are giving remissions to certain people who are in the know. They include people aligned with the labour movement. This is where the integrity issues that we have been speaking about for the past few weeks come into play. It is just not good enough that people can subvert the system like this, starting with the Greens bringing on a motion as a Greens motion and then moving it to executive members’ business so that they can have a couple of bites of the cherry. “We’re going to support LVC in the budget, but now we are going to pretend that we are trying to save everyone in the development sector by bringing forward this motion.”

It is absolutely hypocritical to bring forward a motion like this when you have supported it in the budget, and for that reason we will not be supporting this motion today. It is not appropriate for Mr Rattenbury as a Greens member to bring this in. It is walking both sides of the street—approving it in the budget but saying that we need to do a review because it is so unfair. It is supporting the budget but saying that we have to do a review. They are saying one thing and doing another. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is having a bet each way. It is having their cake and eating it too. Basically it is saying to every developer, every potential homebuyer and unit buyer in Canberra, “#sorrynotsorry.”

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Mr Barr

Ms Orr

Mr Coe

Mr Parton

Ms Burch

Mr Ramsay

Mrs Dunne

Mr Wall

Ms Cheyne

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hanson

Ms Cody

Mr Steel

Mrs Kikkert

Ms Fitzharris

Ms Stephen-Smith

Mrs Lawder

Ms Le Couteur

Ms Lee

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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