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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1808 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I am very grateful to Mr Moore for having given me his arguments in regard to these regulations, because there is a great deal in what he has to say. It has to do with the principles and the management of the Land Act and the principles and the management of land in the ACT. To that extent, we are in sympathy and in harmony, no matter what he likes to say in press releases. These amendments now put into new regulations what was under the old Land Act. As Mr Moore said, they cover three key areas.

The change in domestic boundaries, as Mr Moore likes to point out, may add some value to some property; but in most cases it is a tidying up and it is not a change of lease purpose. It is a curious thing that this change of boundary should come under the remission area of the regulation, because, in fact, remissions usually apply, or betterment usually applies, to change of lease purpose, not to changes to leases. Whilst it is a curious thing that it is within there, I see absolutely no reason to oppose it. It is a tidying up. It is a straightening out of boundaries, which makes life easier for people who hold those particular leases. In many cases, it is in instances where the leases were never properly defined in the first place, and they need to be defined so that people can buy the property. To that extent, I have no reason to oppose the first of the changes.

The second one - the augmentation of blocks and the management of blocks by the Commissioner for Housing - does present some very interesting questions. Again, I have a fair level of sympathy for what Mr Moore is saying. In the end, it comes back, essentially, to the land account. I think that the land account will deal with these sorts of seeming anomalies. From the time of the Commonwealth's Housing Act, since we have been managing the changes to leases in regard to government housing property, we have had this process of enabling augmentation. It is usually for aged persons homes or to provide greater density for low-income earners. The ones that I am most familiar with are, of course, in Ainslie. They are mostly for a very good social purpose and they mostly come with strong Government approval.

I have heard it argued in the past that no remission should ever be made in relation to betterment; but there are cases where Government intervention is important. I believe that this is one of them. The argument as to whether it should be done by way of regulation in this way or by across-the-board 100 per cent betterment - give it back to Treasury and then Treasury, if it is feeling benign on that day, gives it back - is a valid argument. It is one that has been around forever. It is to do with land accounts. It is to do with how we deal with the value of our land and maintain it for the people of the ACT.

In essence, I have no problem with this regulation. I think it really makes no difference in the long run, in that no private interest is making profit from public land. This is where it is extremely important that we get the betterment regime right. The essence of it is to prevent private gain from a change of lease purpose on our public land, which is owned by government. I have every reason to support anything that ensures that companies or individuals are not running around making profit from our land, at the expense of the people of the Territory. But, in this case, the money that is gained in so-called profit by not having to pay 100 per cent betterment is put straight back into government housing.

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