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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 652 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I am not being derisory or dismissing the representations I have received from landlords. I have received persistent, significant and consistent representations from probably every major property developer currently operating in the ACT about their concerns. This is not a provision that landlords or the major investors view with any affection at all. They are significantly opposed to this provision.

I have to say that I do not fully understand the extent of their opposition. It reminded me a little bit of the symbolic importance that the betterment issue generated amongst some sectors of the community; an importance way above and beyond the significance of the issue as far as I was concerned. It seems to me that the investors and the landlords have invested in this particular provision a status that it simply does not deserve; a sort of hoodoo about the woe that is going to befall investment in the ACT as a result of the passage of this particular provision.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You have used up your first 10 minutes. Would you like to continue?

MR STANHOPE: Yes, I will soldier on. Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, this is the most contentious provision in this bill and it does deserve some debate. I think it behoves all of us to place on the record the basis on which we have supported this, what we believe it to mean and how we expect it to operate. I think it is relevant that we do record the concerns that representatives of landlords and major developers and investors in the ACT have about this provision. I do not take their concerns lightly. Some very significant claims have been made to me about some of the implications in terms of investment and the preparedness of landlords and developers to invest in this territory as a result of the passage of this particular provision.

These are hard calls that legislators have to make. We make judgments on these things. I do not want to scare away investors. I do not want people who invest in this territory to come to think that this is not a great place in which to invest; that we do not have here a robust economy that we wish to nurture and that we wish to ensure continues; and that in the judgments that we make on this particular provision we have not taken the concerns of investors into particular account. We want the economy to continue to bubble to the extent that it does. We want it to continue to grow at the rate that it does. It is vital that we encourage, foster and nurture the investment that the major developers have brought to this town. They are quite significant amounts of dollars.

Serious claims are being made by those investors that this particular provision will act as a disincentive; that, on weighing up an investment opportunity in the ACT as opposed to an investment opportunity in a location that does not have this sort of provision, if everything else is equal they will not invest here. I find that very surprising. In terms of the judgments I make, I do not believe that when the crunch comes that will be what happens. I do not believe that that has been the experience in South Australia, and I do not believe that it will be the experience here. We have a robust and vigorous economy that will continue to grow. The ACT will continue to be a great place to invest, if not the greatest place to invest. I do not believe there is anything in this provision that should frighten the horses in that regard.

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