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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1802 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It has certainly been drawn to my attention - and I thank Ms McRae for doing this for me - that the "may" and the "shall" are part of the principal Act and therefore should carry through. I do not accept that argument. First of all, it says two things to us. Perhaps this is the time for us to go back and revisit the main Act if that discretion applies, and I can see an argument there. However, having had this drawn to my attention while I was going through this regulation, it still seems to me, because the principal Act allows the discretion, that there is no reason why that discretion must carry through to a regulation. If the main Act carries a discretion, it does not mean that you therefore must carry it through. It still allows a discretion, and in the regulation you can then say "shall".

Mr Humphries: But you are cutting back a discretion which is conferred by the legislation.

MR MOORE: The discretion is allowed by the legislation, but it does not have to be carried through by regulation. I think the discretion should be omitted. This matter having been drawn to the attention of the Assembly, I think we should also go back and revisit it in terms of the main Act.

Mr Speaker, similarly, my amendments (4), (5) and (7) are to do with this matter of discretion. Rather than be repetitive, I will just draw that to members' attention. Under my amendment (6) relating to regulation 4, we should omit new regulation 15D. I cannot see any public benefit in this measure. Exactly the same argument as I put in terms of the Commissioner for Housing applies. As such, it should be omitted.

Mr Speaker, I have moved this motion today, first of all, because it is a normal part of the powers of the Assembly, although not used particularly often. I think most members here would agree that we look at subordinate legislation and, where we disagree with subordinate legislation, we have the power either to disallow or to modify. In this case, I have sought to modify the legislation because, in principle, the legislation - some of which I disagreed with - has gone through the Assembly. Mr Speaker, I commend to members of the Assembly the amendments as I have put them. To make it easier for members, Mr Speaker, I circulated my notes on this matter some days ago so that members would know exactly what I was trying to do. Hopefully, that will enhance the debate today.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.15): Mr Speaker, not surprisingly, the Government is not supportive of Mr Moore's motion today. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to him and no surprise to anybody else. Mr Speaker, Mr Moore's views on the payment of a change of use charge, or betterment, are well known. I understand his perception that increases in the value of land belong to the people of the ACT. I also, in a sense, believe that; but I believe it is delivered in other ways. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I think it is quite wrong to view the capacity of the Government to collect such increases as relying wholly on the application of charges in this way. There are ways in which the community benefits from those sorts of increases in the value of land other than simply through the levying of a change of use charge, or betterment, as it is still known colloquially around the community.

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