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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 1983 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The reason this inquiry was undertaken was to determine whether or not the change of use charge, the rate at which it is applied and the way in which it is applied, is or is not an impediment to investment in Canberra. Why is this important, Mr Speaker? It is important because investment brings with it prosperity and investment brings jobs. What we see here is the Labor Party saying no, for a period of six months, to additional jobs in the ACT. Professor Nicholls quite clearly says that the change of use charge is an impediment to investment in Canberra.

Mr Corbell: On what evidence?

MR SMYTH: He says quite clearly in his report - - -

Mr Corbell: There is no evidence in this report.

MR SMYTH: Read the report. If you had read the report you would have found the reference. Mr Corbell says, "What areas?". Mr Corbell denies the report. Professor Nicholls suggests an immediate change to 50 per cent, followed up by an inquiry that is based on options; that we look at the whole issue and the sorts of options that we could take in a considered way. Nicholls himself says that 50 per cent could be introduced immediately. It should be introduced immediately. Why, Mr Speaker? Because if we do not we will have this period of malaise.

Mr Corbell says he can do an inquiry that may result in dramatic changes to the Land Act with the introduction of a section 94-type system. He can do that and all the zoning, all the legislation, all the consultation, all the inquiry, get a government response and have it changed by the end of September. Mr Corbell made great play of the delay that the Government had taken in starting the inquiry. As I explained on that occasion, we had been consulting with Professor Nicholls to make sure that we got it right; that the inquiry would progress smoothly and that to delay the sunset clause only to the end of August would not allow him enough time. Mr Corbell rejected that then. He said, "No, no, we can do this". But now, already, as I forecast, he would have to delay it. He is now saying that he can do a substantial change to the way that we govern land use in the ACT. He can do it in three months.

I just do not believe that, considering the workload that the Urban Services Committee has, and I acknowledge that it works very hard on a range of issues. It is probably the hardest working committee in the place, but I do not believe that it has enough time to do this properly. It needs to be done properly. We should not set a time limit on how long it takes because it does need to be done properly so that we do not end up with another six or seven or eight changes. I have some of the graphs that Professor Nicholls put together and they could be circulated for the interest of members.

What we could do today, Mr Speaker, is say that we believe that investment in the ACT is a good thing; that we believe that the jobs that such investment would bring are valuable to the ACT. The strength that it can give to the building industry is valuable to the ACT. The level of confidence that it would engender in the ACT is valuable to the ACT. Then we can get on with looking at a long-term solution, a permanent solution that would allow stability and transparency and encourage investment in the ACT.

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