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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1803 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Indeed, I do not think Mr Moore is consistent when he says that all increases in the value of land belong to the people of the ACT. When Mr Moore bought his house in Reid some years ago, no doubt he paid a certain price for it, and no doubt, if he went and sold it today - - -

Mr Moore: No; all increases based on change of use.

MR HUMPHRIES: But you did not say that. You said that increases in the value of land belong to the people of the ACT. It is a lease we are talking about. Ultimately, in theory, the Government - the Commonwealth, indeed - owns his leasehold land, and, if there is an increase in the value, it belongs, according to Mr Moore, to the Government, representing the people of the community. The fact is that we do not consistently apply that rule. We apply certain charges in certain cases and not in other cases. As Ms McRae herself interjected across the chamber - - -

Mr Moore: That is why it is called a change of use charge, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, it is. But you said, Mr Moore, that increases in the value of land belong to the people of the ACT. Only certain increases do, at least under the principle applied by the way in which we regulate this area.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there are issues to do with remission which need to be explored. In particular, we need to ask ourselves whether the creation of remissions can produce public benefits which are worth while pursuing. For example, the Government announced last year that it was going to provide a 50 per cent remission of betterment in respect of shopping centres that were identified as needing to be revamped and given a fresh outlook in order to be able to face the challenge of changing demographics.

Mr Moore: I disagreed with that.

MR HUMPHRIES: I know that you disagreed with it.

Mr Moore: I think it should be provided as a cash thing.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. The point is that Mr Moore agrees that there should be some benefit conferred on those centres. But he believes, in a very rigid sort of way, that that cannot be done through remissions of betterment; it has to be done through a cumbersome process whereby someone pays the Government money and the Government pays back money to this person.

Mr Moore: It makes it open and accountable, Gary; that is why.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is becoming a dialogue again, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Mr Moore himself asked me, and I have agreed, to table in this place remissions of betterment. So, that is open and accountable, too. People can see that. I do that every quarter. Members see that. They see what remissions are being granted. It cannot be more open and accountable than that, in my view. I think that that is the appropriate way to deal with it.

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