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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 968 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

value. It is the community that makes a decision that the use will change. We are talking only about the value of the change of use. We are not talking about the value of the installation or the establishment placed upon it; it is the change of use. There is no logic to that value accruing to the developer. There may be a debate as to whether it should accrue to the landowner versus the community. I cannot see that there should be a windfall gain or a development subsidy that goes to someone because they have decided they would like to exploit this particular position. It has only happened because the city has grown and there has been a change in the whole topography of the place.

So, of the three, I think the developer is the first out. Once the developer is out, you are getting very close to forgetting about a change of use charge other than 100 per cent - the new value. Why should the community bequeath that to someone just because they want it? Sure, they are going to lobby the Government and lobby them very hard, but I have not yet seen the logic that says a developer should be the beneficiary of a change of use.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (3.45): I want to endorse both the government response to the report of the Standing Committee on Urban Services and the report itself. The committee has carefully examined the evidence available to it on the impact of the change of use charge on appropriate development of our city. It has quite rightly, based on evidence in front of it, concluded that there is a deleterious effect on development by having a 100 per cent tax rate on the improved value of that development. It is hardly surprising to consider that, when you tax something at the level of 100 per cent, you provide a disincentive for people, particularly when compared to a lower rate of taxation.

Let me be clear about a couple of things Mr Corbell said in this debate. He said that there was no evidence of people being discouraged from appropriate development by virtue of the change of use charge.

Mr Corbell: No substantive evidence.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, you actually said both things. You then said, "There's no evidence at all". That is what you said, Mr Corbell. I listened very carefully. Mr Corbell went on to contradict himself when he said that developers, in giving evidence before the committee, said that this was only one factor. If it is one factor, there is obviously evidence. If the developers are saying to the community, "This is one factor in our consideration", then it is an issue, is it not?

Mr Corbell: No.

MR HUMPHRIES: It must be an issue. If developers are saying to the committee, "There is a problem with our decision to proceed with development because of, among other things, the change of use charge", then the change of use charge is an issue and has to be examined. Logically, that is the case.

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