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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3063 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Labor Party and crossbenchers have created too much uncertainty on this issue. We need a definite decision."

We made a definite decision. That definite decision was to reject the government's proposal for 50 per cent change of use charge and to resolve that the existing provisions of the act should take effect. Every member in this place knew that if they were voting against 50 per cent change of use charge then the provision of the act would take effect on 1 October this year.

What are the provisions of the act? They are that on 1 October this year 75 per cent change of use charge will sink over the horizon. It will be sunsetted. What will it be replaced with? It will be replaced with a 100 per cent change of use charge. That was the clear and definite decision of this place. The minister is not happy, because he lost. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot run around Canberra saying that we need certainty, we need to stop making decisions on these issues, we need to make a final decision and get on with it and then, when he loses, decide that he is going to try again. It is not an acceptable proposition from someone who talks about certainty.

Let us talk about what 75 per cent change of use charge means. It is an open slather subsidy across the board. It is a 25 per cent subsidy free-for-all. The minister talks about encouraging high-quality design. The minister talks about encouraging sustainability in design, but where is the incentive for that to occur?

With 75 per cent change of use charge, it does not matter if you are building a basic design at the bottom of the market and filling up the place with insulation to get a five-star energy rating. You still get a 25 per cent subsidy. The people who make the effort to build high-quality urban design, high-quality buildings with good sustainability principles and good environmental principles get the same subsidy. There is absolutely no incentive to improve the standard of urban design. The subsidy goes to the worst performers as well as the best performers. That is a nonsense proposition. That is what 75 per cent change of use charge across the board does. In fact, that is what any level of subsidised change of use charge across the board does.

The Labor Party has stood up in this place frequently and told the government that there are some instances where remission of change of use charge is an acceptable policy tool to achieve specific policy outcomes. We have to look no further than across the road at what is happening in Civic. We have supported the remission of a percentage of change of use charge-in the case of the Civic revitalisation, 100 per cent-to achieve a particular planning outcome. It is targeted, it is focused in a particular area and it is meant to achieve a particular urban design outcome. That is a sensible way of using remission of change of use charge. That is the approach this government should be taking. That is the approach this Assembly should be endorsing. Seventy-five per cent remission across the board is a nonsense. It does not achieve that.

I sought advice-and I had discussions with Mr Osborne on this issue-from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on what options were open to me to try to get this very specific way of remitting change of use charge into the bill the minister presented last week. The advice from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was that I could not amend the bill in the way I was seeking; I would need to introduce a separate bill which would amend the

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