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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3078 ..

MR CORBELL (10.11): Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I move:

These amendments give force to the proposal I outlined to members earlier. They ensure that the sunset provisions for 75 per cent change of use charge remain in the act, whereas the minister's proposal is to delete them. They also change the date for the sunset clause from 30 September this year to 31 January next year.

The Labor Party believes that the base rate for change of use charge should be 100 per cent. We are not prepared to see the base rate become permanently fixed at 75 per cent, which would be the effect of the minister's bill. My amendments allow 75 per cent to be a temporary level for another three months or so. Well before the end of that period, this Assembly will have had the opportunity to discuss how we can target remission of change of use charge. Unlike the government, we do not believe that you should allow remission of change of use charge open slather. Whoever is doing a redevelopment that involves a change of lease purpose would get a 25 per cent remission under the government's position. It is not targeted. It does not encourage good development over bad development. It does not encourage development in particular areas over others. It says that whoever is doing redevelopment that involves a change of lease purpose gets a 25 per cent discount.

That is not what the Labor Party believes. The Labor Party believes that you can get a remission in specific circumstances. Those specific circumstances should be determined by this place, and we should put into legislation the mechanisms to achieve that in a more detailed and specific way than exists at the moment.

I notice that the minister smiles. He thinks everything is going comfortably. He thinks he is in control of the planning debate in the ACT. If you talk to people in the community about planning, they all think the minister for planning is an absolute joke. He is the only minister for planning who allows the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure to do land planning studies. He allows another minister to do planning work, when in fact it should be done by his department. He is the only minister who cuts funding to planning authorities. He is the only minister who uses his call-in power willy-nilly. He is the only minister who attempts to gag community advisory bodies, LAPACs, when it comes to planning matters. He is the only minister who has had six of his major proposals rejected

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