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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 969 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Corbell also said that there was only anecdotal evidence that the change of use charge deterred development. I ask members to cast their mind back to the origins of the report which Professor Nicholls produced and which the committee used as the basis for

its report. Professor Nicholls took rather a long time to produce the report, I concede that, but the report was - - -

Members interjected.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is true that I commissioned the report when I was planning Minister, and it took some time after I ceased to be planning Minister before it was released. If my department was responsible in any way for that, then I certainly express my regret.

We need to know where the momentum came for Professor Nicholls to be commissioned to produce the report. The ACT business community approached the Government in I think 1997 and said, "We are really concerned about the impact of the change of use charge on development in this town. We see it as deterring a great many projects and dampening appropriate employment opportunities in the construction industry in particular".

Mr Quinlan: Surprise, surprise!

MR HUMPHRIES: There is no surprise in that. "Appropriate development is being held up by this process. We believe you should do a study into this matter". The reason the Government went ahead and commissioned the report, coupled with a reduction in change of use charge at the time from 100 per cent to 75 per cent, was not that the business community came through the door and said, "Please do this to give Canberra a fillip", it was that the trade union movement also came through the door and said, "We need support from you to reduce this impact on ACT businesses".

I hope Mr Quinlan is listening to this. It was not the business community that convinced us to do that; it was the CFMEU that convinced us that there ought to be an inquiry of this kind. It was the CFMEU which said, "Reduce the change of use charge to 75 per cent". If there is no evidence that the change of use charges is a dampener on building activity in the ACT, why did the Labor Party back in 1997 support the reduction of the change of use charge to 75 per cent, as they did? If there is no evidence of that, why do it? Any suggestions from the Labor members on that subject? If there is no evidence that the change of use charge was a deterrent to appropriate development, why did you agree to reduce the change of use charge to 75 per cent?

Mr Kaine: They just had a strong hunch.

MR HUMPHRIES: They just had a strong hunch - or was that a strong lunch, Mr Kaine? I did not quite catch that. What was the reason?

Mr Hargreaves: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have tossed somebody out for language like that. I ask the Minister to withdraw. He is impugning the members here by saying that they may have had a long lunch and it may have affected their decision-making process. Either he withdraws it or you name him.

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