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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2523 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

provided to the lessee, who has a right of appeal against the determination. This is time consuming and results in uncertainty. Any options identified in revision of the system must deal most thoroughly with these issues. The introduction of a system that allows payments to be easily identified in advance would remove that uncertainty. If the Assembly maintains that it is appropriate to levy a change of use charge at some level, then a more effective system is warranted. Such a system could also help the ACT achieve specific policy objectives.

Whilst we already have in the land regulations a number of targeted remissions of the change of use charge, such as those for the Commissioner of Housing and Civic revitalisation, there is an opportunity to extend the range of remissions to achieve other targeted objectives. For example, remissions could apply to accessible and adaptable housing developments that demonstrate a high level of quality design and sustainability or proposals that attract employment to centres such as Tuggeranong, Belconnen or Gungahlin, where recent master planning work has been undertaken for the government by the Planning and Land Management Group. In each case it would be necessary to meet specific criteria in order to qualify for the remission.

Earlier this year members of the Assembly indicated their support for this kind of approach. Indeed, when the Planning and Urban Services Committee reported on the issue, Mr Corbell in his dissenting report said:

The signals given by our planning system must promote excellence and give incentive to the strategic needs of the territory. I believe the advantages of the New South Wales system could be incorporated into the change of use charge system without also adopting its inherent disadvantages. The development of such a system would provide far greater certainty, not only for the government and the general community but also for investors who need to estimate the charge when deciding to purchase a lease or flesh out a proposal for redevelopment. The system would also offer administrative savings and reduce appeals to the AAT.

I think we would like to see this issue dealt with properly and finally. Of course, any system should be scrutinised and reviewed on a regular basis. However, to allow the rate of change to move up to 100 per cent at this stage would be simply to insert one more bump into the erratic curve of the ACT's development charging policy history.

May I also make the observation that merely postponing the sunset provisions is not an effective way to deal with the problem. We have done that several times before, the only result being uncertainty and disruption to the process of consideration of the Nicholls report.

I call upon members of the Assembly to take this opportunity to deal with this very important issue in the most thoughtful and responsible manner. The government is fully committed to an open process of consultation and examination of all reasonable options. The process of developing a range of options is already under way, and I invite all of you

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