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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1800 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think it is the responsibility of this Assembly to ensure that we avoid such ministerial discretion if we possibly can; that we avoid putting a Minister or the Minister's delegate in a position where they have to make decisions about large sums of money where they have discretion. It seems to me that these regulations provide that kind of problem.

Mr Speaker, let me speak specifically to regulation 4, where I seek to omit the new regulation 12B on page 3. The reason for this is that the proposed regulation allows the Minister to remit all - 100 per cent - of the change of use charge where the increase in value is caused only by a variation in a common boundary. In other words, the two blocks would be owned by either the same person or other persons who have agreed upon some transfer of leased land. It seems to me that, wherever the principle applies, wherever the value is increased by some action with the land - whether it is a combination of leases or whether it is a change of purpose - wherever there is a change to the lease that allows an increase in value, that increase in value should be paid. Certainly, there should not be 100 per cent remission. There is a sliding scale of remissions, of course; but to accept the current Government policy always to allow 100 per cent remission - in other words, to say, "We are not interested in the increase in value" - is simply to throw away taxpayers' money. Why would we do that, Mr Speaker?

Mr Humphries: It is not taxpayers' money; that is why.

Ms McRae: It is called "rates", Gary. You pick it up in rates.

MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from Ms McRae - I know that she will have a turn in a short while - across the Assembly, saying - - -

Ms McRae: Do not take any notice. I was not talking to you.

MR MOORE: Now, Mr Speaker, she says, with a loud interjection across the chamber, that she was not speaking to me. Mr Speaker, I clearly heard Ms McRae saying to Mr Humphries, across the chamber, "You will pick it up in rates". Indeed, so we should pick it up in rates; but we should also pick it up in the change of use charges. We should also pick it up in betterment.

Ms McRae: Which you do with betterment when you change a lease.

MR MOORE: Unfortunately, it is Ms McRae's misunderstanding of these issues that creates some of these problems. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that there is no ground for remission. If there is no increase in value, why are we suddenly offering 100 per cent remission? It would simply be unnecessary to put this regulation in at all. Through this policy, the general community is clearly going to miss out on financial gain.

The Government must believe that we have huge sums of money. We are no longer worried about this $100m gap, because we have a Chief Minister who can fill it up this year with some patch-up system. I think Ms McRae will agree with me, and I know that Mr Berry will agree with me, that her system has been to patch it up, to sell and lease back last year, to take $100m from ACTEW this year and $100m for light poles next year. But there are only so many things we can buy and sell.

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