Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 480 ..
MR HIRD (continuing):
Of the 19 recommendations of Professor Nicholls, two particularly stand out in my mind. First, Professor Nicholls recommends that betterment, or CUC, be adjusted downwards to 50 per cent. I personally proposed, because of my background, that zero betterment was the optimum. After all, as I indicated to the house, development means jobs. To me, it would be a better way of dealing with the problem. It is the way it is done in other parts of Australia.
Mr Berry: Just give the people's land away at no charge.
MR HIRD: We hear empty vessels from the other side of the chamber making the most sound. I will not mention names. The fact is that we could only deal with something in a professional way as it came before us. My preference would have been zero betterment but with constraints. However, that is something that can be dealt with at another time. People who do not understand the arguments should not jump on the bandwagon and try to score political points. However, on this occasion, because of the opportunities that were before us, I agreed with our colleague Mr Rugendyke that we move without delay directly to betterment levied at 50 per cent. That would be appropriate, as is indicated in the report.
The second major recommendation - this is the important one, and a certain member opposite who was quick to jump on the bandwagon should listen to this - is that over time the whole betterment regime be replaced by a scheme similar to that used in New South Wales and elsewhere throughout Australia. However, this would take time, and time is always an enemy of any jurisdiction such as ours. We do not want to hold up the proposed scheme. Even the colleague of that gentleman opposite does not want to hold up the proposed scheme. Pursuing my zero approach would have held up it for some time. We agreed that such an approach was not appropriate at this time.
Notwithstanding the fact that we do not have a unanimous report, all members are deeply conscious of the problems caused by fluctuating rates of betterment over the years. We are also aware of the confusion caused by different methods of calculating values and actual dollar amounts. It is absolutely vital that the decision that this parliament reaches on betterment, no matter what it is, sets a stable regime for the next 10 or 20 years. This is the only way to bring confidence back into the system - the same sort of confidence that existed between 1971 and 1999, when incidentally the rate of betterment was 50 per cent.
As usual, I would like to thank community representatives, government agency representatives and the secretary, Rod Power. The committee would particularly like to thank Professor Nicholls from the ANU for writing his report in the first place and for appearing as a witness before the committee. Mr Speaker, I strongly urge members to read the detail of the report before coming to conclusions on this issue. I also take the opportunity of thanking Mr Corbell and Mr Rugendyke and also members of the Minister's staff for their assistance in making our task much easier. This is our chance to set a long-term standard for the future of development in the Territory. Let us not blow it.
MR
CORBELL (10.42): Mr Speaker, I join with my colleagues Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke in thanking all of the officials who appeared before the inquiry into the Nicholls report, in particular Professor Nicholls, who provided a great amount of his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .