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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1322 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think the other speakers have addressed most of the issues I wanted to raise but I will just make two other points. First of all, the issue of certainty has been central to the government's arguments in shifting to 50 per cent change of use. There is no doubt that continued changes to the level and application of the CUC have created uncertainty in the development industry and this must be addressed. In saying this, however, it is worthwhile noting that much of this uncertainty has resulted from attempts to reduce the level of CUC charged. It has also resulted from attempts to try to remove the CUC altogether and even to replace the leasehold system in the ACT. That, I think, needs to be kept in mind when members consider the certainty issue in this debate.

It is clearly in the interests of the broader community, as well as the development industry, to know that a system of charging for CUC will remain reasonably constant and consistent. Clearly, the way to resolve that is to decide today that the most appropriate course of action is a 100 per cent change of use charge.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, the issue of certainty can be resolved through some very sensible recommendations which this place has failed to take up to date. One stems from the recommendations of the Stein inquiry into the administration of the ACT leasehold to provide for the establishment of a development rights register to provide prospective developers with information on the range of CUC that they could expect to be charged. Another, Mr Speaker, is to allow for development proponents to pay CUC over the life of a project. Currently CUC must be paid up front in full at the beginning. Allowing it to be paid in stages over the life of a project would help, I believe, to address any negative perception, and I stress the word "perception", of the impact of CUC on development while still ensuring that the community receives full value on the land.

Mr Speaker, it is a pity the government has not chosen to adopt these mechanisms and instead is reverting to what is a blunt tool, a 50 per cent change of use charge. Mr Speaker, I thank members for their patience and I indicate that the Labor Party will not be supporting this bill.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.10): Mr Speaker, obviously I support the bill and I support the movement of betterment to 50 per cent. The argument here, it seems to me, is about the extent of the appropriation by the community of increases in value in land or, if you like, windfalls that arise out of the ownership of property from the hands of the owner of the property into the hands of the community.

It seems to me that the principle that Mr Corbell has put forward is that where there is an increase in the value of the land because of a change in its use, that value properly belongs to the community, and the community therefore should receive the full value of that increase in the value of the land. In other words, it is an argument that says that profit which is based on some public subsidy or public subvention ought to be a profit which goes back to the community, not to the person in whose hands the profit has accrued.

Mr Speaker, I accept the superficial attractiveness of this proposition. Certainly, if you are a Socialist, it is very much in line with the view you take of the way in which the benefits of economic activity should be appropriated back to the state; but I would argue

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