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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4916 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.27): Mr Speaker, I oppose Mr Moore's amendment. It has been a longstanding debate in this place. I do not think it will much illuminate anybody by beginning the debate again at 11.30 on a Thursday night. But let me just say that what we have decided to do is to put forward 75 per cent betterment. Mr Speaker, I think that, pursuant to a recommendation of the Stein report, we are also going to do a fairly careful and detailed analysis of exactly what impact betterment or change of use charge - whatever you want to call it - levies or rates have on the level of investment, the level of confidence and the viability of particular ventures or particular financial or economic outlooks for the Territory.

So, I would argue to members that, if you like, only for the sake of the experiment, it is worth while comparing the kinds of investment decisions that are made during the period of 100 per cent betterment with the sorts of investment decisions that are made in the period of 75 per cent betterment and seeing what comes out of that at the other end. If the sunset clause gets up, then we have no doubt that the issue will have to be debated again in the Assembly in 18 months' time. Mr Speaker, when that happens, we can all assess what we think of the evidence that will then be available. But I say to members that there is a strong need for us to be able to stimulate and attract investment in the Territory.

It has always seemed to me that 100 per cent betterment is a very powerful disincentive to investment, particularly investment which has high elements of risk associated with it. I see no reason to discourage that. The amount we have collected each year from betterment is actually very small. Potentially, in fact, I think it is very small indeed, which proves to me that the tax is at too high a level. That is my view on the matter. But, Mr Speaker, I am not asking people to take my word for those things. I am asking members to give this process of examination of this issue, through the study that Professor Des Nicholls is to undertake at the Australian National University, a go. If that turns out to indicate clearly to members what we should do, then we will follow that advice. If not, we can have the debate in 18 months' time in this place.

MS McRAE (11.30): Mr Speaker, we will not be supporting Mr Moore's amendments at this point, with the proviso that we will be supporting Mr Moore's proposal to put the sunset clause in. If he had not done that, we would have. The Labor Party has a policy of 100 per cent betterment; but it does believe, following the discussion in Stein and the whole discussion that has been going on for a long time about betterment, that it is time that we did have some decent analysis of it. The level of work that Professor Nicholls is going to undertake will, once and for all, perhaps give us sufficient information to do an evaluation of the impact of 100 per cent betterment versus 75 per cent betterment. As it turns out, even Stein said that the Minister was quite able to, and should, offer remissions whenever and wherever the Executive felt that it was appropriate.

Mr Moore: But they were specific remissions that he was talking about, as opposed to a generic one.

MS McRAE: It was well within the ambit of the Government to reduce betterment to 50 per cent, and use rights charges could still be lowered if the Government so chose. It is within the purview of the Executive to vary these decisions.

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