Page 2585 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, it is important that we consider the two issues I have raised. First of all, the before and after valuation system does not take into account potential worth. Secondly, the community owns the land as the main landlord, the ground landlord. Liberal landlords would be horrified if their tenants tried to achieve the same thing as the tenants of the community. The thing that I find most ironic in this debate is that the very people who, put in the same position themselves, would not tolerate the same thing cry out for a difference in approach. They just want to win on every single turn of the wheel. Madam Speaker, it is about time the community as a whole won.
MR DE DOMENICO (3.49): A lot of things were said by Mr Moore. He suggested that Mr Wood had the power to change regulations with the stroke of a pen, and he castigated Mr Wood for not having done so in five minutes, mainly because Mr Moore believes that that is what Mr Wood should do. For Mr Moore's information, the Minister's approach is a sensible one. Perhaps we should ask all interested parties what should be done, and after an informed debate and public consultation the Minister can bring his views to this house. Mr Moore also suggested that there is a great difference between leasehold and freehold, although Mr Moore should realise that, whilst one can buy a piece of freehold land in other places besides Canberra, there are certain zoning restrictions there as well. What Mr Kaine had to say was not far off the mark, Mr Moore, I am suggesting.
I agree with Mr Moore that it is the community that ought to be benefiting. One has to work out in which way the community can benefit and at the same time be fair and equitable to people such as developers. I know that developers and Mr Moore do not ever see eye to eye. Mr Moore perhaps thinks that developers should be wiped off the face of the globe. It is important that we also get a certain amount of development in the ACT, because development can mean jobs and can mean a lot of good things for the ACT. It is important to strike the right balance between what is fair and equitable to the community and what is fair and equitable in terms of the structure and the type of development allowed in the ACT.
Mr Moore also suggested that it was easier for members of this Assembly to be influenced - and then he quite rightly explained that he meant influenced in terms of argument - than other members of the Liberal Party. I suggest that there are also people very interested in investing in this town who do not come from the ACT and that their access to Federal members, whether they be members of the Liberal Party or members of the Labor Party, is not restricted in terms of geography or anything else.
Finally, Mr Moore made some remarks that had nothing to do with betterment tax. He suggested that a certain member of the Liberal Party was involved with the formation of a ratepayers association. For the information of members - - -
Mr Berry: Two.
Mr Connolly: Different associations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .