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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3072 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I urge members to adopt this standard for the people's property-that is, payment for what the land is worth, as a general rule. That means 100 per cent change of use charge. Subsidies in respect of development in the territory should be decided on the merit of the case to suit the particular circumstances of society in the ACT at the time and there should not be a guaranteed windfall gain for developers as the Liberals want. As representatives of the community, we cannot afford to go down that path.

I go back to the point I made first. There were attempts in this Assembly to mislead members with the argument that the world would change if we did not have a 50 per cent change of use charge. That was just a short time ago. Now we are getting the argument that the ACT as we know it will change inescapably if we do not have a 75 per cent change of use charge. This is a very rubbery figure. I urge members who have supported the government on this score in the past or feel inclined to support them now to consider the veracity of the government's argument as it has been put. It has been shallow and thin, and I would argue that members are being misled in relation to this change of use charge. Members ought to stand firm on this issue to ensure that developers do not get windfall gains and that society at large is guaranteed full value for their land, their resource, their future.

MS TUCKER (9.47): I thought the debate on the change of use charge had finished last May when a majority of members voted not to support the government's bill to reduce the change of use charge from 75 to 50 per cent, preferring to let the rate return to 100 per cent when the sunset clauses ran out. My reasons for maintaining the change of use charge at 100 per cent have not changed since May, so I will not be supporting this bill.

The minister claimed in his presentation speech that the various amendments to the change of use charge over the last decade had created uncertainty for the development sector, but it should be noted that this uncertainty has been brought about by the efforts of the developers themselves and their agents in the Liberal Party to undermine the change of use charge.

The history of betterment, or change of use, charges in the ACT has been one of ongoing conflict between those who believe that the windfall financial gains that can arise for landowners whose land is rezoned from one land use to another should be returned to the community versus those who believe that these speculative gains are a necessary encouragement and reward to developers.

Anything less than 100 per cent change of use charge is an arbitrary figure. In fact, the government in its response to the Stein report agreed that the change of use charge should be 100 per cent but wanted to allow for remissions in particular cases where it thought it was necessary to provide an incentive for redevelopment. However, very soon after, in the 1996-97 budget, the government announced that the change of use charge would be reduced from 100 to 75 per cent as an encouragement to the building industry. However, after the Nicholls report, which recommended a 50 per cent rate, the government wasted no time in introducing the necessary legislation, which was first referred to the urban services committee and then defeated by the Assembly.

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