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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3076 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

that they will follow the path that this government has already taken makes it quite clear that we are getting it right.

Mr Corbell accused me of causing more disruption with more change. He assumed he was going to get 100 per cent, because the Assembly did not want 50 per cent. If we leave it at 75 per cent, is that more change? No, it is not. Who is causing the change now? Who is causing the grief here? Labor and their conservatives are. They are the archconservatives of this place, which is a shame. We could have had a meaningful debate on planning.

Mr Corbell: The only person in this place who is shameful is you.

MR SMYTH: He is stung. Here we go with the little quips. Simon is tinkering at the edges again. Mr Corbell wants to put the change of use charge up. He wants to change it again. He is causing the change here. We need to put to rest some myths that those opposite try to perpetuate as they try to build their case for saying they have got it right. There is a leadership void in the Labor Party. They have no policy on planning. They have not engaged in the debate that has been going on across this community for the last four or five months. Labor is only ever stung into activity by what this government does.

Although 100 per cent betterment was introduced as early as 22 February 1990, it has to be noted that there was never a period during which 100 per cent betterment was collected from the majority of lease variations. Under the system introduced in 1990 in the city area leases regulation, betterment was charged at 100 per cent for lease variations where the lease was less than five years old. There are not too many leases that are redeveloped within five years of them being granted. The rate then declined on a 20-year sliding scale, and after 20 years a flat rate applied. The rate after 20 years for full-charge grants was 50 per cent of added value. The rate was higher for concessional and free-of-charge leases. Let us put to rest the claim that we have had 100 per cent. Most full-charge lease variations were assessed at 50 per cent, because redevelopment tends to be on those leases that are ageing.

The system introduced in 1990 continued after the land act was introduced in 1992 and, with a few changes, remained similar, although not entirely the same, until 21 November 1994. Following the Lansdown review of residential development, the rules changed. The usual remission rate of 100 per cent still applied, but the rate was constant at 100 per cent for all dual occupancy development if the dual occupancy was a unit title, as most are.

Professor Nichols, at page 44 of his report, says:

We believe it is appropriate to give incentive for appropriate redevelopment. Since the debate in May we have said that we need to work out where we are going and how we get there. The Liberal government, the development industry, the building industry and community groups have been actively engaged in that debate. Who has not? The Labor

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