Page 1396 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
pointed out, with the 10 per cent figure, that goes up again and that becomes a $30,000 tax on a $300,000 unit. It is quite significant and it would create quite a burden and, we think, a lot of unintended consequences.
The other effect it will have is to move developments outside the ACT, either to other parts of the region or away from the region altogether. This will lead to job losses in the construction industry, fewer rental properties, which will put upward pressure on rent, and lower government revenue and therefore less ability for the government to provide crucial social services, including public housing. This is simple economics and, despite the fact that it may be well intentioned, it would have serious negative economic consequences for the ACT.
Let us take a look at the issue of government revenue. We have already seen that the rate of growth in the ACT has come to a virtual standstill, at 0.2 per cent; yet at the same time, the area in the immediate vicinity of the ACT is growing faster. This suggests to me that people are, for various reasons, choosing Queanbeyan, Murrumbateman, Yass and other areas in the region to live in instead of the ACT. I suggest to the Assembly that one of the reasons for this has been the inefficiency of the planning system and the resulting high cost of building in the ACT.
I would also suggest that, if this bill were successful, it would further add to that exodus. People will choose to buy a unit in Queanbeyan instead of Narrabundah because of the increased costs. This, in turn, will mean that rates, rego and other revenue that would have gone to the ACT government to be used for the benefit of the ACT people will go to New South Wales instead.
I think consultation is very important—and we often hear Dr Foskey bemoan the lack of consultation when it comes to other pieces of legislation before the Assembly. I certainly agree with Dr Foskey on this. I think consultation is important and I think some of the people who would be directly affected by this legislation are the developers. So we have certainly sought the opinion of organisations like the MBA, the property council and the HIA.
These organisations have all commented negatively on this legislation. For example, the property council pointed out that developers already pay a change of use charge, which is paid nowhere else in Australia. Developers in the ACT also pay the highest regime of stamp duty, land tax and rates and in many instances are required to pay for offsite works which elsewhere in Australia are paid for by the relevant authority. They go on to say:
In short, the property council does not support the proposal from the Greens.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by the HIA and MBA. So the industry tells us that we already have a heavy burden of taxes and charges on development and we have seen how this has led to a virtual standstill in growth in the ACT and moves by home buyers to places like Queanbeyan. And yet we have Dr Foskey looking to add more of a burden, a burden which will in the end be borne by first home buyers, by elderly Canberrans looking to move to smaller accommodation, by workers in the construction industry and, ultimately, by the ACT taxpayer who will need to make up the shortfall in revenues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .