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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3067 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

I do not agree with Mr Corbell, who wants to move an amendment to extend the sunset clause until November. In that event, nothing will happen until November. No-one will take on a development.

Mr Berry: Rubbish!

MR HIRD: Of course, Mr Berry has to get into the act. He is an expert on everything. Yet he was not in the chamber to be an expert in the debate on China. I would like to put that on record. I have never seen anyone turn their back on a community before, but that happened and Mr Berry was part of it. So I would be quiet at the moment, Mr Berry, if I were you.

Des Nicholls said that the system we have is archaic and outdated. The betterment system is long overdue for revision. In New South Wales the section 94 contribution scheme imposes an up-front sliding scale fee, so the developer knows where he or she is going. Requirements under that scheme include increased community facilities such as parks, open space, stormwater works, roads, sewerage, et cetera. The developer knows from day one exactly where they stand, so that they can move on and do their sums. They can bring in a development which they are proud of and which the community can be proud of too.

I believe the New South Wales approach would be more beneficial, but you cannot change things overnight. I realise that it will take some time. I believe that that is the path we should take in tackling this very vexed problem. However, in the interim, 50 per cent is something the industry has agreed to. However, as a compromise-and that is the art of politics-75 per cent should be imposed. We should not have any shifting sands. The 75 per cent should be there so developers starting on developments that will come on line within 18 months or 36 months know what the up-front costs are.

If there is a change of government in October next year, developers' pacemakers will need new batteries, because those opposite would change the ground rules. If you are making a significant financial commitment, you need to know the up-front costs from day one.

I agree with Professor Nicholls that the current situation is inadequate, but we have to make it work for the good of the people of the territory. Further down the track we should look at ways of bringing in the system operating in other jurisdictions, which allows the developer and the community to know what they will get at the conclusion of the development-whether it is environmentally sustainable, whether it is something they can be proud of, what the costs are and what returns there will be to the community by way of infrastructure such as parks, roads or whatever.

Why don't those opposite look at history and see why we have a betterment tax? They know exactly why, but of course they are playing politics, as they always do, and they will come out with egg on their face. Labourers, carpenters and bricklayers in the industry need continuity of work.

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