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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3074 ..

MR QUINLAN (9.52): Anything less that 100 per cent betterment tax is effectively a subsidy. I do not think the government denies that. You talk about encouraging development. To have a standardised subsidy, regardless of circumstance, is not rational, because it loses its effect. It is absorbed into the process; it is absorbed into the market price of the land.

We hear from the government that we need to stimulate development to keep the economy going. Earlier today we heard our Chief Minister telling us just what great shape the economy was in-record this, record that. Those record figures have been achieved with 75 per cent. So what fool would stand in this place and say we need to maintain it at 75 per cent when the economy is on the improve?

I am aware that in this town and in development generally it is often a better economic proposition to build a new building than redevelop an old building past its time in terms of reliability and services within it or an old building past its time because its design no longer caters for the way we do business, the way professional chambers are set out or the way buildings handle electronic wiring and the newer systems of communication. It is easier for a developer to build a new building. He usually starts with the client.

We need a system in Canberra that encourages and pushes development in one direction or another. We need a system which will allow us, when the need arises, to push redevelopment instead of new development. Mr Corbell wants to see a system-we have discussed this in our caucus-that gives us the capacity to say, for example, "Go to west Civic, where there is a decline in activity." We could create circumstances to prevent that part of the city from dying while we plonk new buildings up Northbourne Avenue. We need some form of control. I would like to see the government with a bit more control than it has now generally, but that is a matter of will and backbone, I suppose.

Let us have the economic framework that allows us some flexibility and some leverage to be able to push design and development and to have some control over our town. We represent the total community interest, whereas developers are only going to look at their particular development. Who blames them? That is quite fair. They will work to the edge of the envelope. We have to make sure the envelope is appropriately designed.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (9.57), in reply: We have heard some interesting comments and some interesting interpretations tonight. The government clearly went after 50 per cent change of use charge in May-we make no apology for that-and the Assembly said no. If those opposite wish to interpret that as meaning the Assembly said yes to 100 per cent, they are entitled to do that, but it is just not so.

Mr Quinlan is defeated by his own logic. He said, "What fool would say the city is not working at 75 per cent?" It must be he and Mr Corbell, because they now want to move to 100 per cent. What fool indeed, Mr Quinlan?

Mr Corbell was stung into activity by this bill. Mr Corbell said that this is so important that we have to get it right. He says the we have a better system. But he did nothing about it. He was smug and complacent because he believed he had a 100 per cent change of use charge coming. I would hazard a guess that had I not introduced this bill we would

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