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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1317 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, took into account the nature of the untargeted subsidy CUC is at a discounted rate compared with the policy adopted by government in assistance to community and other organisations.

Mr Speaker, evidence was presented during the Planning and Urban Services Committee inquiry highlighting the fact that the application of a 75 per cent or 50 per cent change of use charge as a way of encouraging development, which is what its advocates argue, is not a transparent or well targeted process. The ACT Council of Social Service presented the view that, instead of a subsidy through a discounted change of use charge, if the territory took the view that it should be providing incentives for development it should do so in a targeted way through the provision of a direct subsidy or payment. ACTCOSS took the view that this would remove much of the ambiguity about the levels of revenue forgone, which is what we are talking about with change of use charge. It is revenue forgone if it is at a level of less than 100 per cent.

Evidence was also presented to the committee that the recommendations of Professor Nicholls for a 50 per cent change of use charge were not backed up by the substantive data needed to justify such a level of subsidy. The point was made that the application of such a large subsidy across the board without any substantive data similar to that which the government requires when considering other forms of assistance, is inappropriate and would certainly not be tolerated in any other policy area. A comment from the Director of the Council of Social Service was: "We tend to get sent out of the room if we have not got anything to back up our claims," and not just anecdotal claims. The government requires substantive analysis and proof that there is a need for a subsidy, that there is a need for assistance. This government does not accept claims for a subsidy or for assistance in any other policy area based on anecdotal evidence, and neither should it; but it does with this, and it is wrong.

Mr Speaker, another concern which the government has not addressed in its implementation of a 50 per cent change of use charge relates to the fact that when a change of use charge is calculated at a discounted rate of 75 per cent, or 50 per cent, it does not differentiate between the quality of development being proposed. Developments of a relatively low standard in terms of design and material receive the same level of subsidy as development of high design and building standards. As a matter of public policy, surely, a subsidy such as this, which is currently provided through a discounted rate of CUC, should have explicit aims and objectives. One of these should be to encourage high-quality, sustainable development in Canberra if the application of discounted CUC across the board does not address this issue. Members will have to forgive my cough.

Ms Tucker: You could seek to have your speech tabled. It is getting really painful.

MR CORBELL: No, it is all right. It is okay. Clearly, the only way to encourage high-quality development is either to require a 100 per cent change of use charge on all development proposals which involve a lease variation and then provide a subsidy to achieve those aims in terms of design and materials the government believes appropriate, or to allow remission of betterment only where specific criteria are met. Mr Speaker, the government's proposal does neither and it is seriously deficient in that respect.

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