Page 2195 - Week 07 - Thursday, 6 June 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Kinloch at page A7 of that report, where they say quite clearly that the current provisions for the difference between the renewal arrangements for residential and non-residential leases should be retained. That is a very sensible proposition.
It is unfortunate that, because of the insistence on Executive Deputies chairing committees, Labor members and Mr Moore were unable to take part in the deliberations of those committees. As a result of the committee members who were present, the report records, at page 31, that there was a deadlock on this issue, with two members - Mr Jensen and Dr Kinloch - supporting the present provisions on lease renewals and two other members, surprisingly the Liberals, suggesting that things should change. But, when you read the additional comments of the two Labor members and Mr Moore, it is clear that there was a three-two split on views there in favour of retaining the current system. There was no suggestion - there had been no suggestion in the public arena until Mr Kaine dropped his bombshell - that there would ever be a change.
Mr Speaker, the clear view expressed in those reports and in the Langmore report is that there is no need for change in this area. Professor Neutze, of the Australian National University, prepared a very significant study on this, which was tabled for the Langmore report and should be read alongside it. Everyone who has looked at this seems to agree that there is no demonstrated case for change.
The development lobby argues for the changes proposed by Mr Kaine. They have a good reason for arguing for it - it amounts to a windfall profit. But they have been consistently unable to demonstrate a case for change. The Canberra property market cannot be said to perform poorly because of lease premiums. The lease premium is a cost of development, true; but developers paying this cost have shown that Canberra is a sound and profitable place to invest. Witness the extremely good performance of the Capital Property Trust, which has been confirmed by the share market - one could presume that the market is the best judge of these matters - as one of the most successful property investment trusts in Australia.
I have repeatedly asked the proponents of change for factual data to support their view that the lease premium is in some way a disincentive to desirable development. They have been unable to substantiate their case to me. I read within the Langmore report that they were unable to substantiate their case to the Langmore committee and I am sure, from speaking with members who served on the planning committee and from reading its reports, that it is the same story there. There are assertions that the lease premium is a problem and assertions that the lease premium in some way results in problems for investment in Canberra, but no facts and figures, no hard data - mere assertions. And the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .