Page 2953 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
use charge, as I understand it, and the uncertainty created by different valuations, interpretations in the valuations, developers’ views around that and the other charges they had for their development proposals.
So they came to us and said, “We would like to see the change of use charge codified.” That started off this work. A consultant was appointed to do the work, and that consultant identified an issue with the residential application of the change of use charge. Another piece of work is being done on that, and we have sought to rectify that in line with the intent of the legislation.
As to codification, industry had some responses to the draft report that was issued. We responded to that by allowing for another round of community consultations to be held. That has provided the opportunity for stakeholders to highlight concerns that they have from the draft report and to make suggestions on the way forward. The final report will also look at a cost-benefit analysis as part of government processes as well as a regulatory impact statement going into the issues of concern that have been raised by members in this place around the impact on housing affordability. It will go to issues of development and whether a codification will impact on urban redevelopment. That is something members in this place are very concerned about.
The issue about whether or not the change of use charge is an appropriate charge is the one that is being confused in this. The Liberals cannot have it both ways. They are seeking to oppose application of the change of use charge when it is a legitimate charge that has been debated in this place as part of legislative processes. Everyone has had the opportunity to comment on it.
Mr Smyth: Nobody was told it was going to be $50,000 a unit.
MS GALLAGHER: Those prices were looked at in terms of the draft report, for which consultation has just finished. What the law says at the moment is that the change of use charge should be determined after appropriate valuation of the land in question. That has not been happening for residential dual occupancy or apartments for some reason unknown to anyone in this place. The change of use charge is a legitimate revenue stream to the ACT government. We have a legislative framework which outlines how we should be applying that charge. That has been in place for some time, and we have sought to remedy an anomaly that has been identified as part of this year’s budget. As I understand it, individual valuations are now being done for residential redevelopments of dual occupancies, as has been the case for commercial—
Mr Seselja: Has the new arrangement been tested?
MS GALLAGHER: The codification, which is another part, has not been introduced. What we are doing at the moment is simply applying the law. As I understand it—
Mr Seselja: Prior to codification, has the new arrangement been tested? Has that new application been tested?
MS GALLAGHER: Perhaps Mr Seselja’s interjections are more appropriately aimed at the Minister for Planning, who has portfolio responsibility for this. As I understand
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video