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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3068 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

I commend the minister for establishing some sense of stability. If we start a development today, the developer will know what the cost are at the conclusion of the development. The people opposite have changed because they are frightened that certain members who voted with them when this matter last came before the house may vote with the government.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (9.25): There is nothing slick about Mr Hird. We got it exactly as it came. You knew what you were getting. You got it straight in the eyeball. He revealed the goal of the Liberal Party to get rid of the leasehold system. Mr Hird put it to us that we should be using the system used by local governments right across New South Wales. If they keep developing it, improving it and tweaking it, they might just get somewhere near what we have in the leasehold system.

Professor Nicholls was not the only person who looked at the leasehold system. Before him there was Mr Justice Stein, Professor Troy and Mr Yeomans. Before that there was an inquiry by Professor Neutze, which was reviewed by Mr Langmore and his committee in the federal parliament. There were also a number of other inquiries.

The Liberal Party thinks they did not get it right. We know why you think that. You want to make sure you look after your mates, the developers. We understand that. We know exactly why that is your view. But report after report on the leasehold system has pointed out its benefits.

Mr Hird, it is not just a matter of betterment. That is one of the benefits of the leasehold system. The planning control mechanism is another. We can protect our land in a whole range of ways. The protection of our planning through the leasehold system is very clear.

The minister is obviously not prepared to take the flak but wants to share the flak with the rest of the executive. I would exempt myself, because I step aside on these issues. One of the proposed changes in the legislation is to omit the word "minister" and substitute "executive", because Mr Smyth does not have the wherewithal to stand there and take it himself. He has to share it with his Liberal mates. I think that is a good idea. The executive should make these decisions and take full responsibility, rather than ministers.

The delightful part of the debate on this issue is that the Labor Party has seen the light of recent times and changed their policy to 100 per cent change of use charge. Does it work? That has to be the main question in everybody's mind. If we do charge 100 per cent betterment, do we get a return to the community, or does it, as some would claim and as we have just Mr Hird claim, stifle development?

I spoke to the person who had just retired from managing the leasehold system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has 100 per cent betterment. The whole time they have had it, development has been stifled. Nothing grows in Hong Kong. Nobody develops anywhere. There is no building.

Mr Smyth: Do they have a planning system like ours?

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