Federal
Government Charging for Services
A Double Dip Tax
and
another Threat to Housing Affordability
Melbourne 13 January 2012: With
the Federal Government already receiving $23,500 tax on a
$200,000 housing block in Victoria, attempts to charge over
$89,000 for the processing of environmental submissions by the
Department of Environment for housing developments is
unjustified, the Urban Development Institute of Australia
(UDIA) said today.
Executive Director of the UDIA (VIC)
Tony De Domenico said, "this is just another unwarranted tax
on first home buyers at a time when housing
affordability in Australia is under attack on every street
corner".
"This raises a serious
precedent - will other Federal Government agencies follow the
same ploy to try and boost their budgets?"
In a submission to the Federal
Government the UDIA said, "The estimated cost of $89,000 for
the assessment has surprised the industry as it exceeds
current costs of the private sector involved in environmental
assessments."
Mr De Domenico said given the 35-day
turn around for this process, it is clear that this and other
fees noted in the discussion paper released by Department
exceed the rates currently being charged by experienced
environmental consultants. The UDIA has
calculated the cost to equate to 8 full time mid-level
scientists working for the 35 day period, which is
unlikely.
"This can be seen as an attempted
double dip at taxing the first home buyer and the industry as
both the State and Federal Governments receive substantial
taxes from urban development".
"These taxes form part of the base
which should fund activities such as those performed by the
Department in relation to the Environment
Protection Biodiversity Conservation
(EPBC) Act".
"Whilst the UDIA supports the goals of
the EPBC Act, we do not support cost recovery as an
appropriate source of revenue for the
Department."
The UDIA
submission says a proliferation of inefficient taxes and a
complex, unresponsive planning regime are responsible for
exacerbating the price of housing.
Developments which have required
approval under the EPBC Act have often garnered substantial
additional costs, in the form of expert consultant's fees,
holding costs, mitigation efforts and the significant
financial burden associated with environmental offsets.
"These costs ultimately are passed on
to the home buyer," Mr De Domenico said.
UDIA
SUBMISSION FED GOVT COST
RECOVERY