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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3073 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It has to be remember that land in the ACT is the key natural asset. We are a small territory, and we do not have mineral or significant agricultural resources. It is imperative that governments do not squander the value of the land. An original objective of the ACT's leasehold system was that increases in land value that accrue as the city develops should be returned to the community as a whole and not to individual leaseholders through speculative gain. The change of use charge does this by returning to the government the increase in land value on particular blocks where the lease purpose clause is changed from a lower to a higher value use.

The Greens believe that anything less than 100 per cent change of use charge represents a subsidy to those developers who are able to secure a change of lease purpose. The development lobby keeps pushing the line that this subsidy is necessary to facilitate redevelopment and that 100 per cent change of use charge has discouraged particular development proposals in the past. However, as I have said before, this claim has assumed the proportions of an urban myth.

Professor Nicholls admitted that such claims were only anecdotal and could not find any correlation between the level of the change of use charge and the level of building activity in the ACT. He found it was difficult, if not impossible, to isolate the effects of the change of use charge on investment from other factors affecting investment in the ACT-factors such as demand for office space and rates of population growth. But the government likes to build up this urban myth.

I agree with Mr Berry. I think the government has been quite misleading in the way they have handled this debate. Mr Berry asked Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne to address the issues. I think Mr Osborne has, but I am waiting to hear Mr Rugendyke's detailed responses to these issues.

I understand that the urban services committee was presented with evidence about some development not proceeding because of the change of use charge, but that it was conceded by the development lobby that it was not the change of use charge alone that resulted in the development proposals not proceeding. I would be very worried if government subsidies were artificially stimulating particular types of building developments which did not match demand. From a planning perspective, development activity should be led by demand from building users and not by whether there is a subsidy available for the development. If the government wishes to promote particular types of development, then it should do so in a direct, transparent manner that can be reviewed by the Assembly rather then relying on the blunt mechanism of a reduced change of use charge on all lease purposes changes.

I understand that Mr Corbell wants to extend the sunset clause and look at some kind of compromise in the form of criteria about what sort of development should be subsidised. That sounds like a sensible response. I think it would be useful to support an extension of the sunset clause, and I look forward to seeing what Mr Corbell comes up with.

I do not see why the government should be giving away revenue stream by reducing the change of use charge when there is uncertain public benefit from this move-apart from the benefit to developers' profits-and unverified impacts on development activities in the higher charge. So I will not be supporting this bill. I want the change of use charge to revert to 100 per cent, as currently provided for in the land act.

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