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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1318 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The introduction of a 50 per cent change of use charge will not result in any improvement in the quality of urban redevelopment, nor will it provide for open transparent or accountable analysis of the level of subsidy provided by the territory to the development sector. The appropriateness of moving to a 50 per cent change of use charge has been poorly substantiated and is not backed by the clear, detailed and substantive analysis required of other requests for government assistance.

Mr Smyth: Simon, just wait 30 seconds. We are all happy to sit here and wait.

MR CORBELL: No, unfortunately, it will not go away.

Mr Smyth: I think we are all happy to sit here for 30 seconds. It will stun them all out there.

MR CORBELL: I thank the minister for his concern. I turn now to the change of use charge as a disincentive for development. The government argues for and justifies a reduction of change of use charge to 50 per cent by saying that the current level of CUC levelled at a higher level is a disincentive to development. There is no substantive evidence to justify this claim. During the planning committee's hearings on this inquiry evidence was presented in camera which sought to justify the claim that the change of use charge at 75 per cent or higher was a disincentive to investment. While this evidence did highlight the change of use charge as a possible factor influencing decisions relating to development, it was conceded during the inquiry and the evidence given that it was not CUC alone which resulted in development proposals not proceeding.

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to continue my comments at a later time.

Leave granted.

.

Mr Hird: Do you want to incorporate your speech?

Mr Corbell: No.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.55): I am delighted to follow my close colleague in this matter, Mr Corbell. I rise to lend my support not only for what Mr Corbell has said but also for the very succinct way in which he has put those arguments. I was particularly taken by his quote from the Property Council of Australia on the way they perceived how leases should be managed, who remains in control and who is entitled to the profit. It is an argument that I believe I put here on one or two occasions previously.

Mr Smyth asked me a little while ago whether I was going to speak on this matter without notes. I said I suppose the best way for me to respond to this matter is to do a search in Hansard from 1989 onwards. I imagine you will find a speech on this matter about every three months. Rather than bore members, I have nothing specific to add to those speeches in general terms.

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