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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1811 ..

MR MOORE (11.42), in reply: Mr Speaker, there are just a few issues that I would like to deal with in reply. Apparently, according to Ms McRae and Mr Humphries, I seem to have indicated that any change in the value of land should belong with the people of the ACT, not with the individual. The written notes that I had in front of me, which perhaps I did not read correctly - and I do not think that matters - say "where a change occurs and that change results in the increase in the value of the land". That is why we call what we are talking about a change of use and a change in the way we deal with the land. That, to me, would include combining two leases. I would consider that a change, as opposed to the increase in value that occurs naturally in terms of inflation and as opposed to actions that individuals have taken that change the value of the land. I think it is just worth clarifying that, Mr Speaker.

Another factor that Mr Humphries raised was that this will discourage minor variations to changes in boundaries. Minor variations to changes in boundaries will also have minor valuation changes. Therefore, the costs will be minimal, if that is recognised. I think that that is really a fairly shallow argument. Mr Humphries put what is probably the most substantive of the arguments here that most of us deal with, which is that this would discourage development. I think the argument really is that investment is a good thing, and therefore anything that stands in the way of investment is a bad thing. I think that oversimplifies the argument.

There is a big difference between wanting to encourage development and wanting to encourage unnecessary development. Development is something that ought to follow economic growth. So, what should happen is that we have a productive enterprise coming to the Territory - and the Government has been successful in bringing some of those to the Territory, for which I congratulate it. That creates the jobs. The jobs, in turn, mean that people need housing and that people need office space. That creates the demand, which then encourages development.

When we have a situation where people change their lease purpose and get an increase in value - in other words, a gift, in some cases of millions of dollars - that encourages people to develop. Then we get the situation, as we see happening around Civic, where you have new buildings created, people move out of their old buildings into the new buildings, and those buildings are left languishing. So, there are problems across the business area associated with that kind of approach.

I think they are the issues that we really need to wrestle with. We have raised these issues in the context of this debate, as we have on previous occasions, but I think they also go to much broader issues.

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 77.

Motion (by Mr Humphries) agreed to:

That the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

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