Page 471 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Not only that; we have added a very extensive buffer zone between the existing residential area and the proposed residential area. So it seems to me to be a very good deal for that part of Canberra. It is environmentally responsible. As many debates in this Assembly, not necessarily specific to North Watson, have indicated, we do need to stop the urban sprawl; we do need to contain transport and the never ending flow of cars across our city. Mr Moore, on the one hand, can be very environmentally sensible, but for other reasons on this occasion he can be quite irresponsible in respect of the environment.
I want to make one further point in the context of what he said before, and that is about profits going to developers. There is still some debate within government as to how this will be financed, but the fact is - - -
Mr Moore: Put in a 100 per cent betterment tax and then we will know that you are genuine.
MR WOOD: I will come to betterment in a moment. The fact is that in very large measure the future development here will be in the hands of the Government. I know that it is a disappointment to some people here, but we have been moving through joint ventures to resume government control of land development, and this will be a next step in that process. There will not be unlimited profits for the developers, save the one major developer, which will be the Government and hence the people of Canberra.
Mr Moore made some remarks about Professor Neutze's comments. On this occasion Professor Neutze was wrong. He has been wrong before on matters, as I have been wrong before, as we all have been, because none of us is infallible. On this occasion he is wrong. It might be appropriate in a financial analysis to take account of betterment, and Professor Neutze has applied the description of betterment to the income when we sell greenfields land. I am not sure that that is the interpretation of betterment, but I understand what he is saying. He said that. Okay; that could be taken into account in a financial analysis. Then he says that there is only 50 per cent over there at North Watson. That is not so. A substantial part of the area in that draft variation will not be subject to 50 per cent. It is much the same basis as greenfields, as Gungahlin. There are some leases held by people, particularly along Northbourne Avenue, but to say that it is subject totally to 50 per cent is quite wrong. Some of it could be, in circumstances, but that forgets also - - -
Mr Moore: How much money are you talking about?
MR WOOD: Have a look at the map, Mr Moore, and examine each of the leases. What I am saying in a sense is a lead-up to my main point. The main change that we made in betterment reflected the before and after valuations. That is the significant change. Professor Neutze made no reference to that, and he should have. This is where you were confused, Mr Moore. These would be relevant factors to talk about in a financial analysis, not the economic one. If we go down the path of that financial analysis, then we look at all the money coming and going. In that situation you would have to write in the better cities money. You did not mention that and that is where Professor Neutze missed the point.
Mr Moore: I did.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .