Question Time

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about growth areas infrastructure charges.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As members would be aware, if they have been keeping abreast of issues across the border in Victoria, planning minister Justin Madden is calling a new levy on rezoned land 'a growth area infrastructure charge' saying that it will tap into some of the windfall profits from land rezoning and for the provision of much-needed infrastructure to help share the cost of building new infrastructure by funding major government works in the areas of roads, public transport and other state government services.

The amount that the minister's colleague is talking about in Victoria is some $95,000 per hectare. Members will be well aware that the government is about to release its 30-year plan for Adelaide which will, unfortunately, encompass a whole range of high-value farming land which will be rezoned, I suspect, or potentially identified for future growth areas.

My question is: will the minister rule out that this government will impose a growth area infrastructure charge or a development levy between now and the election; and, if it is fortunate enough to be re-elected, will the minister rule out any future Labor government doing so?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member has asked for an opinion; the minister can answer it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:31): The member asks what will happen if this government is fortunate enough to be re-elected. I think we have received lots of good fortune in that respect, but it is really from members opposite.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Answer the question. Are you going to impose it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It shows how much attention members opposite have been paying to the affairs of parliament in the past few days because, if the shadow minister had read my comments in the estimates committee yesterday morning relating to urban development and planning, I did cover that issue. The matter was not specifically raised in a question, but I did indicate that this government was not considering the sorts of charges that Victoria is and which I think are described as 'a betterment tax'.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: What?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: A betterment tax. It is well-known in property development circles. If the deputy leader wishes at some stage to become the shadow minister of planning—and it might be quicker than we all think; it could happen—and if she talks to the people in the industry, she had better get used to some of those terms. The idea, obviously, is that, if there is a capital gain that accrues, it should be absorbed or the government should get its take.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Rip it off the developers.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, would you give them a windfall gain and take nothing? This government does not propose, and has consistently resisted, those sorts of development fees. However, as I indicated yesterday, if one is to provide that infrastructure, clearly, if there is no such charge, it is inevitable that private developers will have to contribute towards that. How that has happened in the past is that there have been negotiations between local government in particular and developers in relation to the provision of infrastructure, and to some extent this government has facilitated that.

We did that in relation to Mount Barker several years ago where the council reached some arrangement there with developers because the council argued with some justification that, if there were to be an expansion of housing in that area, it would put pressure on the roads and they would need to be able to cope with that. To facilitate that, it was only fair that those developers made some contribution towards the provision of public facilities. Already, within developments, we do require developers to provide roads and other basic infrastructure such as stormwater schemes and the like, and it is appropriate that we should do so.

This government has consistently not supported the sort of development charges that exist in other states. In New South Wales I believe the charge can be over $170,000 on individual blocks, if you can believe what is said in the media. We have not supported that in this state but, clearly, if infrastructure is to be provided to enable growth, obviously those making the significant capital gains and profits will inevitably have to contribute in some way to the provision of that infrastructure. Otherwise, those developments will not happen.