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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 965 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The Government believes we can have either leases or a statutory plan but not both because it is too confusing. It is quite clear that this Government's intention is to get rid of leases. It does not want leases anymore as a system of development control or planning control or a system for protecting public interests. This Government is ramming a nail into the coffin of the leasehold system because it wants to bury it once and for all. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Smyth made some comments in his tabling statement today which are not backed up in any way. Mr Smyth claimed that I, as a member of the committee, informed representatives of the industry when the Nicholls report was first released that, although I had not had the opportunity to read the report in detail, I would be opposing it. That is simply a misrepresentation of what I said. What I said to industry representatives was that there were certain key issues on which the Labor Party had a very clear position, and we were not simply going to back down on those for no apparent good reason.

The fact that we were not prepared to support the key recommendation of the Nicholls report, which was a 50 per cent change of use charge, was not that there was a lack of evidence from the Labor Party in assessing the proposal and arguing its case but that there was a complete lack of evidence in the Nicholls report that justified a reduction to 50 per cent.

Indeed, during the public hearings on the Urban Services Committee inquiry into the Nicholls Report and the change of use charge in the ACT, it became quite clear that the change of use charge was regarded by industry representatives as only one element in deciding whether or not projects should proceed in the ACT. Indeed, they conceded that it was not the key problem with development in the ACT and that there were a range of factors of which it was simply a part.

This Government is charging ahead with the recommendations in the Nicholls report, failing to recognise that there is absolutely no justification for a reduction of 50 per cent and, in effect, is giving away a community asset. It is a rip-off to the Canberra community to charge only a 50 per cent change of use charge. This is a rip-off which the Labor Party is not prepared to accept.

The Minister went on to make some other claims. He said that the views expressed in the dissenting report were not entirely reflected in evidence given to the committee. I note that he does not go on to identify in any way where that is the case. He just asserts it. That is not a satisfactory response. If Mr Smyth had read my dissenting report carefully - or at all - he would have seen that it relied heavily on evidence given to the committee by industry representatives and community sector and planning representatives as well as key reports on planning and leasehold administration in the ACT, predominantly the Stein inquiry into the ACT leasehold system, which is well known in this place.

It would be a complete abrogation of the responsibility of this committee if it had failed to look at that evidence. It seems to me that the Minister does not want any evidence considered which disagrees with his point of view. I was prepared to have the discussion and the debate with industry representatives during the public hearing. I was prepared to question them on exactly how relevant the change of use charge was to their decisions

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