Page 2584 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Minister drew attention to an even more pertinent part of the debate - the potential value of the land. Instead of doing all this talking, he could do something about it. Under our current system of valuation, instead of having a lease valued according to the purpose of the lease, we have a situation where before and after values are established, taking into account the potential value of a site. Say that we have a church site worth $100,000. The only buyer of such a lease would be another church. In terms of supply and demand, that site would not be worth very much money. If the site had the potential for an office block, then it might well be worth $5m after the lease is changed. Under recent valuations taking into account the potential for a change of purpose, that site may well have been valued at $3m. Our community is losing what it is entitled to - the real value of the difference between what the lease purpose allows and what the new lease should allow. My reading of Mr Wood's statement is that this is an issue that he is at present considering.
Madam Speaker, let me re-emphasise that the Minister has it within his power to change the regulations and to do it this afternoon, should he so wish. Madam Speaker, I had hoped to have available tomorrow the legislation that I was preparing for tabling, but I am told that it has been delayed and that it will not be ready perhaps until Thursday but probably until the next sitting of the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the real question about the leasehold system is: Who benefits? That is the question that Mr Wood raised in the initial instance. If you look back through letters to the Canberra Times to see who was defending the current system and who was looking for a system that allowed the community to benefit from the leasehold system, it is quite clear that the potential for benefit to the community is huge. That is supported by notable commentators on the leasehold system such as Professor Max Neutze and Mr John Langmore, who have both been responsible for quite detailed reports on the leasehold system.
I must say that the report brought down by John Langmore was not his own report; it was a parliamentary report. It was a report issued, as I recall, without dissent by the Federal Parliament. That means that that careful study into the leasehold system and its recommendations were supported by Liberal members - Liberal members from across Australia who are not subjected to the sorts of pressures that might well be put on Liberal members here by local developers. I mean in terms of argument, Madam Speaker. I am not suggesting anything improper at all. It is not my intention to do so.
Madam Speaker, I look back to 5 December 1991. The Hansard indicates that when we dealt with the planning legislation I moved an amendment to give effect to 100 per cent betterment tax. I note that the vote was 14-1. I stood out on my own. Ironically, the Residents Rally, who at times had said that they supported 100 per cent betterment, did not see their way clear to support it on that occasion. I do not remember the exact reason why. I looked through the arguments; but, as I looked back on them, they did not seem particularly coherent. There has been an interest in betterment charges because of the benefit to the community. Should we use this system appropriately, should we use it to its full potential, then I think there is a real possibility that the Government would have the ability, at the very least, to peg the rates and, at the best, to reduce rates to members of the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .