Page 464 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is the critical part. We have this Minister speaking publicly about some $6m to $8m saving, and that is a very strong argument as to why we would favour this proposal. When we are talking about a $6m to $8m benefit to the ACT economy, to ACT revenue, to ACT Government funds, then it is okay for the Minister to take that point; but, when somebody else draws attention to the fact that there are some questions about that part of the financial analysis, the Minister wants to take a different tack and go back to an economic analysis. Professor Neutze goes on:
The relevant point is that the ACT Government receives 100 per cent betterment from the sale of previously rural leases at Gungahlin (assuming that there is competitive bidding) but at the most 50 per cent of betterment, if there is any, from changes of lease purposes on land leased for urban purposes at North Watson.
That is very simple. The lease is already owned by individuals, who will be able to seek a variation, which is part of this whole process, to their particular lease. They will get at least 50 per cent of the value because we have, at maximum, only a 50 per cent betterment to be paid on leases that are changed to residential leases or, as Professor Neutze puts it, to urban purposes at North Watson. In the latter case, redevelopment is effectively subsidised, and I think that is the critical part. The development is subsidised here through our leasehold system.
Mr Wood: Not at all; it is irrelevant.
MR MOORE: Mr Wood says that it is irrelevant, but of course it is not.
Mr Wood: I will tell you about it shortly.
MR MOORE: It will not be shortly. It is not irrelevant.
Mr Wood: What do you mean by "It will not be shortly"?
MR MOORE: I have only started on the first point of my speech, and I have 10 points to go. If we take into account betterment, clearly there is no real financial benefit to the Government out of this proposal. But there is a financial benefit to those who would develop. I used the word "developers" before, but I am not trying to set up a vision of some horrible developer sitting up there. These are the people who currently hold the leases and who are likely to get some financial benefit to those leases.
My second point is that this study claims to be a like-to-like study, but it does not do that at all. It looks at Gungahlin greenfields, at the whole of Gungahlin, and then compares it - supposedly they are like-to-like - with the whole of Watson. If it were to do a real like-to-like study, it would be looking at Watson in its North Canberra context, and they have made it very clear that they do not take into account the North Canberra area strategy.
We already have a situation where there are offsets in infrastructure benefits in terms of North Watson, and I have discussed those prior to this. I am sure that Mr Kaine would agree that, had this been set out in an accrual accounting method, which is something we are exploring in the Public Accounts Committee when the financial statement is done - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .