Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2315 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Furthermore, we will have the opportunity when amendments to the Land Act appear before us. The argument put by the Government for not agreeing to this was that the objectives of the ACT leasehold system were, even now, modified by the Stein committee; but, in fact the modifications were very minor indeed. We believe that the principles should remain exactly as they are. That was an important perspective of the committee's deliberations.

We also agreed on the term for betterment. The Government suggested the term "use rights charge" instead of the phrase "development rights charge" which had been suggested by Stein. In fact, at the hearing, when Mr Humphries appeared before the committee, there was a fair bit of interchange about what was the best way of setting out what we were trying to achieve. We were trying to achieve a better understanding, for individuals who deal with the leasehold system, of what we mean by this particular charge. What came out of that interchange was the term "change of use charge". That seemed to be the language that would most easily be understood by most people about why they are paying money. They are paying money because they used the lease for one purpose and they now wish to change that lease and use it for another purpose; and, therefore, there should be a charge associated with that. The committee unanimously recommended that we use the language "change of use charge". That certainly seemed to be acceptable to the Minister during that public hearing.

We also felt that more work needed to be done on the issue of betterment and on the renewal of commercial leases. On the issue of betterment, Justice Stein actually suggested in his report, at 15.15, that a number of particular issues needed to be studied. We recommended that the Government actually follow through that study. We have also suggested that more work needs to be done on the renewal of commercial leases. We want to know why it is that the Government has accepted the Stein recommendations.

The Minister may well remember that one of the very few areas in the report of Stein where there was a dissenting opinion was on the renewal of commercial leases. The dissenting opinion on renewal of commercial leases argued not only for a full charge but said, "Perhaps it should revert back to a rental position". We believe that this matter has not been adequately dealt with, nor has the response been thoughtful enough. The committee will be looking forward to the Government's response on that or even a note in writing from the Government as to their approach so that the committee can further consider that issue.

The committee also agreed - and it is interesting that, although the focus no doubt will be on our areas of disagreement, there were some large areas of agreement here - that the Australian Valuation Office valuation should be altered only - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation. Mr Moore has the floor.

MR MOORE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In order to promote transparency, when the Australian Valuation Office valuation has been carried out, instead of any negotiating going on, the committee agreed that that be the valuation; the Australian Valuation Office, or whatever body the Government commissions, should make a valuation and that should remain the valuation; the only way that it can be changed is through an appeal

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .