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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1801 ..

Mr Berry: She is yours. She would not be there if it were not for you, Michael.

MR MOORE: Yes, Mr Berry, I know that you interject all the time, saying "your Chief Minister". But I sit here and look at the options, and I choose the least worst, Mr Berry - and it is the least worst by miles. When I look at you, Mr Berry, it is the least worst choice by miles and miles.

Ideally, Mr Speaker, a rule should be instituted that assesses the increased value of the combined total of the blocks against the previous combined total of the blocks. This would probably require amendments to the Act. In the meantime, the appropriate response is to remove this unjustified capacity for the Minister to relieve people of their tax liability. That is what it is: It is relieving people of their tax liability.

I return to regulation 4. I also seek to omit new regulation 14 on page 4. The remission capacity appears at first glance simply to benefit the Commissioner for Housing. Casual readers may be deceived into thinking that it is, therefore, a regulation for the benefit of low-income housing residents. It is nothing of the sort. I think, Mr Speaker, it is important to recognise that this is the very antithesis of the whole basis of the rearrangement of the government financial and accounting systems; that, where money is raised or there are costs, they should be appropriately attributed. All this does is shift costs. If, after modification of the lease, the land continues to be owned by the Commissioner for Housing, then the only result is a liability shift between the public accounts. That has no particular advantage or disadvantage to the Territory as a whole. I accept that. It also has no particular benefit to Housing tenants. Indeed, that money could be shifted in a way that is much more transparent.

However, if the block is modified and soon sold to private interests, as would be tempting for the commissioner, then the net result would be private acquisition of improved lease value without the normal change of use charge liability. I see that as, in a way, a scam that gets around this leasehold system. The benefit of this clause would never flow to normal tenancy-purchasers of their housing lease, since they are not usually engaged in having lease purposes upgraded from residential. If, indeed, the Government sees that in some way there is a benefit for the Commissioner for Housing here, then the appropriate way to go about that is to do an aboveboard transaction that can be easily seen. I think that this measure should be omitted.

Mr Speaker, there is a series of discretions that I then refer to. In relation to the third amendment to regulation 4 - in new regulation 14A, omit "may" and replace it with "shall" - if the increase is sound in principle, it should be applied without ministerial discretion. Such discretions amount to unfettered capacity to relieve developers of tax liability. I cannot understand why a Minister would want to have such a discretion. I would have thought that the discretion would be, to a certain extent, like an extra weight that the Minister has to carry or - because Ministers would normally delegate that capacity - a capacity that public servants also would not wish to have. Mr Humphries, having looked at how the Revenue Office operates, I would have thought that the Revenue Office was always reluctant to look at discretions. They much prefer not to have discretions. There are situations where there is very little choice; but, of course, they would be very reluctant. So, I think that this should be dealt with.

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