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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 104 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

If a block of land in a community is to be redeveloped and the use changed, generally the party acquiring that block is acquiring some of the amenity that this city offers. That amenity belongs to the community as a whole. Let us assume we are talking about a couple of residential blocks in Braddon that are going to be turned into many more residential units. I have no objection to redevelopment, but what will that developer be selling? He will be selling proximity to the city. He will be selling the amenity of this city. That is a commodity, although not tangible, that belongs to the community. If people, whether it be the developer as the intermediary or the ultimate user of the units, are to gain some of that amenity that is available-proximity to the city and services that not everybody enjoys-then there is a price to that. It is price a payable to the community to be applied for the benefit of the community as a whole.

I recently had come to me the case of a developer in Braddon who had his development knocked back because apparently there is a tug of war between the new ActewAGL and the government as to who augments services.

Mr Moore: Who told you it was a tug of war between the two?

MR QUINLAN: That was the inference. I have spoken to the developer and to Mr John Mackay, the chief executive of ActewAGL.

Mr Moore: And did he verify that?

MR QUINLAN: In his own way. I will explain that bit to you later, if you like. But it is apparent that as land use is intensified there is a requirement to augment the base services within the area. That is a cost generally borne by the city or by the original developer. If one pays market price for a block of land, then one presumes that the services are there. The point to be made is that there is a cost involved in redevelopment, and that cost should not necessarily be borne by the community but should be part of the improvement.

Everybody in this place has been lobbied intensely by representatives of developers and property councils in relation to the change of use charge. Although it does not amount to a lot of money in a given year, it seems to have become some cause celebre that a number of parties wish to continue to debate until it is reversed. Each time I have had a discussion with people involved I have said, "Bring us a case. Show us the numbers. Show us the money. When did change of use charge inhibit redevelopment? When did the city suffer because there was a change of use charge, or because the change of use charge was 100 per cent?" The 100 per cent is the benefit that applies when the land use changes. Either people pay for the benefit they get or the city subsidises the redevelopment. They are the only logical choices.

I am personally not against redevelopment. In Canberra the average number of people per dwelling has dropped from over four to close to 21/2, which means that a lot more dwellings are required to accommodate the same population and that choices in relation to residences are changing. It is necessary that the government, or the community via its government, have some control and some influence over how the city develops and the capacity to waive the change of use charge where we want to encourage development.

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