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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 485 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

conclusion that was reached in regard to the 50 per cent was a fair compromise. I saw no reason to disagree with Professor Nicholls, having heard all the evidence and taken it all in. As I say, the philosophical differences caused the dissent. I do not hold any philosophical position. I made up my mind based on Nicholls and based on the evidence.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (11.02): I have had time to scan through the report of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services. The work that has gone into the issue of betterment in the Assembly since I came here in 1989 is extraordinary. The different opinions in the Assembly indicate that we may well need to take this issue to a referendum to resolve. As the Assembly changes its make-up, the issue seems to wax and wane.

I have very strong opinions on the issue and am delighted with the work done by Mr Corbell in his dissenting report. I do not think I could have done better myself. I think it is a very effective piece of work. It is something that in our private discussions Mr Corbell and I have been at one on since he came into the Assembly. I hope that will continue.

It is a fundamental issue about the prerogative of the community as a whole to get the benefit of the land that the community as a whole owns. It strikes me as a huge irony that those who most strongly advocate getting rid of betterment are almost invariably landlords. Doing away with betterment would be the same as saying to them, "Sorry, but all you get from being a landlord is the rent. You do not get a capital gain on your property". In those circumstances most landlords would say, "Why be a landlord?" and would move away. The irony is that those very same people are denying that the community are the landlords. It is very clear that the community in this case is the landlord. It is exactly the same thing. Just as they would hate to be denied the capital gain on their property, the community would hate to be denied the capital gain - I am using that term fairly loosely, although it is a very accurate description - on their property. That is what the issue is about.

If the landlord, the property owner, is entitled to the full 100 per cent capital gain on his property, so too is the landlord of all the land in the ACT, the community, entitled to the 100 per cent gain. It is as fundamental as that. It may well be an issue that we should take to a referendum. We ought to let the community decide. In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that the community, understanding that they are the landlord, could say, "Why should we do away with our capital gain? We want it and we want it delivered".

If you want certainty, that might be the way we settle it. It has to be settled with a long-term solution. In the interim, the solutions put up in the dissenting report by Mr Corbell are particularly interesting. I would encourage crossbench members, including Ms Tucker - Ms Tucker and I have generally agreed on leasehold issues, as have Mr Corbell and I - to back the dissenting report. I hope Mr Osborne will continue to recognise the importance of the community as the land-holders, the community as the landlord, and take a firm stance on this issue. If that happens, then the recommendations of Mr Corbell can carry through. We can allow the sunset period on the current legislation to lapse and revert to 100 per cent betterment. That is the best solution for the community as a whole, and I think that is way we should go.

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