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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1315 ..

MR CORBELL (4.40): Mr Speaker, the issue of who should receive the improved value of land in the leasehold system has been widely considered and debated both during as well as well before the period of ACT self-government. It is an issue which goes to the heart or the purpose of the leasehold system and the interests of the people of Canberra and the nation.

Mr Speaker, the bill presented by the minister today proposes to revert the level of change of use charge, or betterment tax as it is more commonly known, to a level of 50 per cent from the current level of 75 per cent. This proposal amounts to a complete abandonment of the leasehold system. It is a move which will only further undermine the leasehold system, and it will be a move towards a complete removal of the change of use charge in favour of so-called contribution schemes or, as they are known in New South Wales, section 94 payments.

This move fails to recognise the purpose of the change of use charge in ensuring that it is the lessor, that is the community, that receives proper payment for the sale of property rights held by them. Mr Speaker, this move does not take into account concerns that the across-the-board subsidy inherent in a discounted rate of CUC is untargeted, that it applies equally to low-quality and high-quality development, and that it has not been required by this government to be justified in the same level of detail as are subsidies or grant schemes provided by government in many other policy areas.

Mr Speaker, the government has failed to substantiate the claim that that change of use charge is a disincentive to investment in the development sector. The comments on this matter are completely anecdotal in nature and the evidence that has been presented to the Assembly's Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services, as well as in the Nicholls report itself, could only indicate that CUC was part of a problem when it came to encouraging investment or development in the ACT.

The issue of certainty has also been raised as part of this debate. Whilst certainty is clearly an issue, the way to resolve that is not to simply propose a lower level of change of use charge or to replace it with another charge altogether.

I would now like to address briefly three important points in this debate. Firstly, one of the key purposes of the leasehold system is to ensure that the community receives the improved value of the land when a lease is varied. In levying the change of use charge, the government is ensuring that the owner of the land, the territory on behalf of the Commonwealth, receives a payment in exchange for the additional rights granted to the lessee.

Mr Speaker, as acknowledged by organisations such as the Property Council of Australia, and I quote:

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