Page 1137 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the other half goes to the speculator. The other half ought not to go to the speculator. It ought, if we are going to run our leasehold system appropriately, to come back to the people of Canberra.
In tight economic circumstances it is most important that we look after our revenue as best we possibly can and this, of course, is a major part of our revenue. The other part of the argument is that in tight economic circumstances we ought to provide a situation where development can occur. If that is the case, and it is important to provide a developer with a gift of some $3m, $4m or $5m, then let us do it openly. Let us say, "Here is your $3m, $4m or $5m". Let us wear it, and let us see whether the taxpayers of the ACT think that is appropriate. In tight economic circumstances when we wish to encourage development it may be appropriate, but let us do it in an open way.
If the system were to be administered correctly, instead of our forward estimates showing the betterment tax over the next four years as $3.4m, we could expect to have a far greater expectation in revenue terms, taking into account, of course, the fact that we are going into a recession, which could have a major impact on that. The other thing is that there is a great attraction now, an even greater attraction than before, for people who wish to develop properties over 20 years old - that is, properties in Civic - instead of developing where we all believe the development should be occurring, namely, in the town centres. So, what we are doing is removing yet another incentive to get people to develop in the town centres rather than in Civic.
The real question about this amendment to the legislation is: What is the rationale for the nexus between the age of the lease and a concession on betterment? An understanding of the leasehold system indicates that there is no nexus; it is something that this Government, in attempting to find a compromise, has got wrong.
The other factor that I think is most important is that the legislation that we have before us was tabled less than a week ago. I accept, as Mr Jensen has explained, that the Government had made an announcement and it is going to be retrospective to the date of that announcement. Normally I object to retrospectivity in legislation, but the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation Committee has explained that this just puts into effect what the Government had announced and, therefore, there is no unexpected retrospectivity. I accept that, and I think that is reasonable.
This Bill came before us last week. It is not just going to the in-principle stage this week; clearly it is the Government's intention to take it right through to completion. That is simply not good enough. It is a complicated issue. Dealing with any part of the City Area Leases Act is a very complicated and difficult issue. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .