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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1319 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I am disappointed that Mr Rugendyke is not here because I would like to have reminded him that when we talk about what Mr Corbell was talking about, the ownership of the land, we should remind people that the owner of the land in this case is the people of the ACT and it is entrusted to us in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I foreshadow that at the detail stage I shall move an amendment so that instead of having 50 per cent, as Mr Smyth has suggested, we will move it back to 100 per cent. I had intended to leave it, and I think Mr Corbell was in the same frame of mind, from discussion I had with him earlier, and to allow the sunset clause to take effect, which would have brought in the 100 per cent. However, since the government has pre-empted it, and the minister brought it on, it is entirely appropriate for us to change this to 100 per cent.

I suppose it is of great frustration to me, Mr Speaker, that the Liberal Party and this government still do not see the significance of this issue in terms of how the community as a whole is entitled to its rightful ownership of the land. It is a good business practice, as owner, to ensure appropriate leasing and to retain the value of the increase in the land when it is a matter of change of use. That is something that belongs with government. To me it is just so fundamental and so self-evident, and yet we still have the Liberal Party bringing this matter back to the Assembly, whether they are in opposition, as they did before Mr Smyth was here, or whether they are in government. The reality is that the full value of the land belongs to the people, and we ought to respect that.

MS TUCKER (4.58): I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter again. Like Mr Moore, the Greens have spoken very often in this place on issues of betterment and I join with Mr Moore in supporting what Mr Corbell has said.

The history of betterment in the ACT has been a succession of policy changes in how betterment should be calculated, reflecting an ongoing conflict between those who believe that the windfall financial gains that can arise to landowners whose land is re-zoned from one land use to another should be returned to the community versus those who believe that the speculative gains are a necessary encouragement and reward to developers.

The Stein report into the administration of the ACT leasehold system which was released at the end of 1995 brought this debate to a head. It recommended that the betterment or change of use charge be the same across Canberra and that a rate of 100 per cent without remissions should be phased in. The Stein report noted that a general remission system provides a subsidy for development to existing lessees irrespective of its merit, and also at the expense of new lessees in the ACT who cannot access such capital gains. It also promotes development in established areas at the expense of locations where unleased land is available, such as around town centres. In fact the government, in its response to Stein, agreed that the change of use charge should be 100 per cent but wanted to allow for remissions in particular cases where it was thought necessary to provide an incentive for redevelopment.

However, very soon afterwards, in the government's 1996-97 budget, the government announced that the change of use charge would be generally reduced from 100 to 75 per cent as a general encouragement to the building industry. It also commissioned a study

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