Page 2581 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other part of the equation, the remission rate, has also attracted considerable comment, with it generally being recommended that no remission should be allowed. On the other side there are those who consider that if the formula were changed, causing betterment charges to increase, then it is likely that the rate of development would be adversely affected if the increase in betterment could not be passed on to the end buyer.
These views have all been examined in the work that the department has been doing. They highlight the complexity of the betterment issue and make it plain to me that if changes are to be made it is necessary to address a wide variety of issues, including the nature of Canberra's leasehold system, the impact on government policies, the effect on rating values and any inequities which may result. From the work done to date it is clear to me that there is a case for making changes to the current arrangements. It is imperative that any changes be handled carefully so as to avoid any unintended consequences. Further, it is necessary to recognise the need for certainty in the arrangements that those wishing to initiate developments will want to put in place. All these matters will be fully addressed when I make my announcement next month.
I note that Mr Moore has foreshadowed an intention to introduce legislation to attempt to vary the system. In the circumstances I suggest that it would not be appropriate to proceed with that Bill until the Government's review is complete and the debate therefore better informed. I present the following paper:
Betterment Arrangements - Ministerial statement, 24 August 1993.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
MR KAINE (3.32): I would like to comment briefly on the Minister's statement on betterment arrangements. I note with interest that he says that he will be making a further statement on this matter within a month. He states that there are issues that need to be addressed so that people are fully informed; that debate has been going on for some time, some of which has been informed and a lot of which has been uninformed. I agree entirely with those statements. What concerns me is that, having said all that, the Minister then concludes that it is clear to him that there is a case for making changes. I have not heard anything put forward by anybody that would warrant making a change. I am surprised that, since the Minister has said that he is not yet fully informed and is going to make another statement in a month's time, he is prejudging the issue and saying that there is a need for change. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that there may well be a need for change, but not necessarily for the reasons that the Minister has in mind.
We need to have a look at the history of land tenure in the ACT, I suspect - the nature of it and how it has changed. The argument about betterment flows from the proposition that all land in the Territory is owned by the public and is leased; it is leasehold land. If you go back to 1901, or even 1927, that was the case. In those days, when people were granted a piece of land, in some cases they paid nothing or virtually nothing for it. I can remember that even in the 1950s when land for residential purposes was auctioned in Campbell the premiums were relatively small. But there was clearly a leasehold system, and the way the Government recouped its share of the money for the community was by way of land rent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .