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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 109 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

Development opportunities bring jobs, bring a better economy. I am sure you would all agree. Mr Quinlan talks very positively-and that is great to hear-about the ideals for a vibrant city. Thank you, Mr Quinlan. These go hand in hand with the good economy, the jobs and a growing, thriving city.

The alternative costs of 100 per cent are not good for Canberra. I suggest that a better and fairer betterment tax of 75 per cent will encourage development and would be part of the jigsaw of creating a thriving economy. And I rest my case.

MR HIRD (11.49): I am delighted to follow my colleague Mrs Burke. I was listening with interest to Mr Berry talking about squandering the people's assets. His government flooded the market with 11,000 blocks of residential land, thereby reducing the cost. So I find his argument that this government is squandering the people's assets most interesting. In Gungahlin, the satellite district created under the former Labor government, residents had narrow blocks and narrow streets forced on them. That could also be seen as squandering the people's assets.

Twelve months ago my committee, Planning and Urban Services, looked at betterment or change of use charges and made certain recommendations. With my professional background, I believe there should be no betterment charge at all. It should be zero. You know my view, Mr Corbell. I have said in the committee and I have said in this house that we should encourage healthy development done in a correct and proper manner. The way to do that is to do just what New South Wales has done with section 94 of its Local Government Act. The betterment tax or change of use charge should be abolished completely and as Professor Nicholls indicated in his report to the government, we should adopt a system similar to that in New South Wales.

Why do I believe that we would be better off having that system than the current betterment tax or change of use charge? The reason is that a developer and the community would know up front, before the development was undertaken, how much that development would cost in financial or other terms. The current system does not allow that to happen. As a compromise, in the report of 2 February, I recommended 50 per cent.

Mr Stefaniak: And so should they.

MR HIRD: Thank you, Mr Stefaniak. So should they. I also believe that a future government should grasp the nettle and look at the outdated system we have before us at the moment. It was introduced in the 1960s because of developers coming into the territory and developing areas without making a contribution to the utilities that had been placed there by the community. That is the historical fact.

We had healthy development over 20 years because there was stability. Betterment was 50 per cent, and everyone knew the rules. Mr Corbell, my colleague on the committee, was interested when the MBA, in giving evidence to our committee, made the strong point that betterment or change of use charge, at whatever percentage, should be embedded over years and not move up and down every few months as it has over the last few years. Then if today they started a development that would taken 36 to 48 months to complete they would know that their estimations of the cost of betterment would not escalate, being 50 per cent one day, 75 the next and 100 the next. Mr Corbell will recall

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