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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1799 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

(1) Regulation 4 - new regulation 12B (page 3)
Omit the new regulation 12B.

(2) Regulation 4 - new regulation 14 (page 4)
Omit the new regulation 14.

(3) Regulation 4 - new regulation 14A (page 5)
In paragraph (1), omit "may", substitute "shall".

(4) Regulation 4 - new regulation 14B (page 6)
In paragraph (1), omit "may", substitute "shall".

(5) Regulation 4 - new regulation 14C (page 7)
In paragraph (2), omit "may", substitute "shall".

(6) Regulation 4 - new regulation 15D (page 9)
Omit the new regulation 15D.

(7) Regulation 4 - new regulation 15E (page 10)
In paragraph (2), omit "may", substitute "shall".

Mr Speaker, the regulations that the Minister tabled with reference to change of use charges rely on a basic principle of our leasehold system; that is that, where a change occurs and that change results in an increase in the value of the land, that increase in the value of the land belongs with the people of the ACT. If you like, that is the pure part of the principle. Then remissions are dealt with, as to what level of charge should be put by the Government in dealing with such remissions. That is the issue we are dealing with today.

Mr Speaker, my personal belief is that there should be no remission at all. I found it very interesting, when I spent some time with the immediate past administrator of the leasehold system in Hong Kong, that they never allow remission on the increase in the value of land in Hong Kong - which is probably why they have so much trouble with development in Hong Kong or which is probably why they have not been able to encourage the development of Hong Kong! That having been said, Mr Speaker, I am also conscious that extrapolating from one country to another, from one system to another, is always difficult and is fraught with a series of confounding factors.

Mr Speaker, one of the difficulties, as I see it, with this subordinate law is that it assists in creating a climate which is conducive to corruption. That does not apply to this particular Minister, whom I have faith in as far as that goes. I am not making any accusations, and I do not want to be construed as making any accusations in that way. But what we have learnt from royal commissions and the Fitzgerald commission, as far as the police go, is that the critical factor is to establish a climate which is not conducive to corruption. So, where I see issues of ministerial discretion being extended over large sums of money, I think that we are at risk of creating a climate that is conducive to that kind of problem.

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