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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1328 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

There is a curious point here in that the Assembly itself called for this report. It asked for the report to be done and I am told that the previous Assembly agreed that Professor Nicholls was the person to do it. It is curious that upon receiving this report, that does advise that we should drop from 75 per cent to 50 per cent, that we choose to disregard it. It is even disregarded after it was sent to the urban services committee and the majority of the committee did agree that 50 per cent was desirable. They did in fact validate Professor Nicholls' work.

It is quite clear from what Professor Nicholls says that it is, in fact, more than a perception. It is easy to say it is only a perception, but Professor Nicholls showed examples of the impact that change of use charge had on investment compared with investment in other areas. The example he quoted particularly was South Sydney. I believe, and I believe the report says, that the present system for determining the change of use charge has a negative impact on investment in the ACT. We have had many changes. There have been seven variations over the last nine years. The rate has bounced up and down. It is curious that the period before that, a period of some 20 years, was one of the most stable times in the ACT, and the betterment levy at that time was fixed at the 50 per cent rate.

Mr Speaker, the work was done. The report that Professor Nicholls has put together is an analysis of the evidence that was put to him. He has said that 50 per cent is the correct level. The urban services committee has validated that, except for Mr Corbell's dissenting report, and that is the reason why the government brings this bill back on.

We believe that the lack of certainty and the high level of the change of use charge, and the fear that it may go to 100 per cent, is a disincentive to investment in the ACT. We want to see certainty. We want to see people getting on, bringing their investments to the ACT rather than taking them elsewhere or doing less investment. We want to see that the system accommodates the building of a city that will last well into the years to come.

It is curious, at last, to hear from Mr Quinlan some support for the government on the payroll tax. I acknowledge his support; that there are other ways of assisting and making sure that appropriate assistance goes out to business development. I would disagree, yet again, with Mr Corbell and Mr Moore on their interpretation of what should happen here.

Mr Speaker, the government brings the bill back on because it believes it is important. It believes it is time that this matter was decided for a longer period. We have had seven changes in the last nine years. People continually complain that Canberra's development is too hard and too time consuming, or too costly, or too uncertain. We should get rid of those fears and get people investing in the ACT, helping us develop the city, creating jobs and creating certainty. For those reasons, the Assembly should support the government's bill.

Question put:

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