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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 1980 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this is the other significant planning issue, or land management or lease administration issue, that the Assembly is being asked to consider today. The issue of betterment or change of use charge, as it is now known - I understand that amongst public servants it is known as CUC, which is a rather unfortunate acronym - has a long and controversial history. It has a history which dates back, certainly, to the beginning of self-government, and well before that. The issue needs to be resolved.

Back in 1997 this Assembly agreed that the rate of change of use charge levied would be set at 75 per cent and that a report would be undertaken by Professor Des Nicholls into the issue of betterment and change of use charge in the ACT. The Government was very slow in getting this report together, very, very slow. The Government had from November 1997 to get this report under way. They did not commission Professor Nicholls until the end of last year to undertake this report.

Mr Humphries: How is this relevant to this motion?

MR CORBELL: Mr Humphries asks how is this relevant. I am speaking about the report by Professor Des Nicholls which is mentioned in the motion. The Government had a very long time to get this report together. It took a very long time to get it together. In fact, its delay, I would have to say, was pretty negligent. Nevertheless, the report has now been completed and I am pleased to see Professor Nicholls' analysis.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that members of the Government are going to stand up in this place shortly and they are going to say, "You do not like the umpire's finding. You want to revisit it again". Well, I invite the Government to stand up and make that argument because they know it is an argument which is fundamentally flawed. They know that it is the role of this place to make the final decision about the level of change of use charge levied in the Territory. They know that. They understand that. They cannot expect that this Assembly will simply take this report holus-bolus and say, "Yes, you are right. Do what Professor Nicholls says".

In fact, their own approach on this highlights that there is a real inconsistency because they are saying that the Assembly must act immediately to introduce a 50 per cent change of use charge in the Territory; but, interestingly, they are wanting to refer other recommendations of the Nicholls report to the Standing Committee on Urban Services for inquiry and report. So, some of them need to be implemented immediately. Indeed, Mr Nicholls says some of them should be implemented immediately, but he does not say that other issues should wait. He does not say that at all. The point I am making, Mr Speaker, is that all of them should be referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Services or all of them should be implemented immediately.

Mr Humphries: Why?

MR CORBELL: Because that is exactly the logic behind the Government's argument in saying, "You have to implement the report. You have to accept the umpire's finding". Well, Mr Speaker, we are interested in considering this issue further, but we are conscious of the need to make a final decision on the matter.

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