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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3065 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Let us talk about the impact that a blanket remission of changing use charge has. It encourages speculative redevelopment. It does not encourage redevelopment where we need it. It does not encourage redevelopment where it is in the community interest. It only encourages speculative redevelopment. Anyone with a big block of land in an old suburb can say, "This block of land is worth a lot of money if I sell it as a single dwelling property, but if I put another dwelling on it I can just about double my money." That is speculative development. It is not socially useful. It does not achieve purposes which we as an Assembly try to set through the Territory Plan. It simply allows people to make a windfall gain by changing the character of their suburb, their street, their neighbourhood-by building dual occupancy, by removing backyard trees, by increasing the levels of hard standing in local areas, by changing the microclimate of suburbs so that they are hotter with fewer trees. All those issues flow from an across-the-board 75 per cent change of use charge at 25 per cent remission.

There are ways around this: you require change of use charge to be at 100 per cent unless specific criteria that warrant a remission are met. I hope that Mr Osborne is appreciative of that difference. You have specific criteria which target sustainability, good environmental design and retention of existing trees on a block if it is dual occupancy. You table in this place an instrument which says we will remit a certain level of change of use charge if these criteria are met. The Assembly, if it wishes, can disallow that instrument. That is the way to use a tax and remission of a level of taxation as an incentive to provide a good urban design outcome. The minister has not put anything on the table that does that in concrete terms. He has talked about sustainability. He has talked about issuing directives to PALM in terms of approvals. But he has not linked that to the taxation regime; he has not linked that to change in use charge.

That is the direction in which we should go. I made a statement publicly earlier this week to that effect. It is an absolutely outrageous proposal to come in here at the death knell, the last sitting before the current sunset clause takes effect, and to say, "You must do this and there is no room for anything else to be considered." Labor will not support a status quo change of use charge which is 75 per cent. Labor asks this Assembly to reject the minister's bill, return change of use charge to 100 per cent and get on with looking at how we can sensibly remit change of use charge in specific circumstances to achieve good urban design outcomes. That is the sensible approach, not the free-for-all the minister is proposing tonight.

MR OSBORNE (9.13): I voted against the government's attempt to lower betterment to 50 per cent last time. But at the time I certainly had not made up my mind whether I was comfortable moving to 100 per cent. I even indicated to Mr Smyth on the day that I would consider leaving betterment at 75 per cent.

I do not have a strong view on betterment one way or the other. I try to avoid such planning issues like the plague, but unfortunately I get dragged in. I have had a discussion with Mr Corbell today. I have indicated that I am prepared to look at his legislation, which he has informed me he has not been able to have drafted.

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