Page 1143 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, there is also an issue of detail, though of principle, that I am flagging that I will be moving at the detail stage. I circulated an amendment earlier today on white paper, which I withdrew after discussions with the Chief Minister and then with Mr Jensen and the Government's advisers. The original proposal was to make the determination of the amount of betterment an instrument that was disallowable to ensure public scrutiny. I will accept the view of the Government's advisers that that in effect is putting an additional appeal point in because disallowable instruments come before this Assembly and may slow procedures down. I am happy to accept, or to propose as an alternative, that the rate that is set for each position of betterment be by way of an instrument that is published in the Gazette. There is an important safeguarding principle there, Mr Speaker, which is that the citizens of this city ought to know what rate of betterment has been struck and is payable for development projects.
There has long been a public perception and a public concern in the Territory - and I am not making allegations that this is necessarily correct - that betterment could lead to deals being done and special arrangements occurring and certain people benefiting as opposed to others. It would be good in principle for the Government to accept this amendment to ensure that when betterment is imposed the rate that has been imposed becomes public. We are all aware, I am sure, that one of the best ways of ensuring public confidence in the decision making process is to have that decision making process open. That was one of the goals that were laid down when the Labor Government initiated this process of drafting comprehensive planning legislation.
One of the central goals in the original instructions issued under the Follett Labor Government was that the planning process be open, because it was felt that that openness would ensure not only that various corruption practices would not, in fact, occur, but also that there would be public confidence that they could not occur. I would urge Assembly members and government members, in particular, to look favourably on this amendment because it is consistent with that goal - certainly, the stated goal of both sides - that decision making in the planning process be seen to be open.
By way of a simple amendment requiring publication of the rate of betterment in the Gazette, it avoids any suggestions that may be made by anyone in the community that a particular developer at a particular development site somehow got an advantage. I certainly accept the Government's argument that the Minister is required to strike the rate of tax that is prescribed and that, by way of the regulations that we are told will be made, there is not, in fact, a broad discretion there. They are required to strike a rate of tax which depends upon the nature of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .