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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1806 ..

Ms McRae: There is no change of lease.

MR HUMPHRIES: There is no change of lease. It makes no sense at all. The proposed regulation 12B, in fact, is more restrictive than the existing provision, in that it also requires the leases to be granted for the same purpose. That ensures no unearned increment in value to the gaining lessee - if any lessees gain land in the variation - unless that gain is reflected in a parallel loss to the losing lessee. So, there is no loss in added value to the community at all in those circumstances.

If the regulation is disallowed, Mr Speaker, the gaining lessee will probably be required to pay for the land twice. The losing lessee must agree to the variation, and will not be prepared to lose land without being compensated by the other lessee, presumably. So, the gaining lessee has to compensate the losing lessee for the value of the land that he has lost and also has to pay the Government for the correction to the boundary. So, the same variation is being paid for twice, if this regulation is disallowed. That would discourage minor boundary discrepancies being corrected, and that is not in the interests of the broader community.

Mr Speaker, my colleague the Minister for Housing might want to say something about the Commissioner for Housing and his capacity to obtain remissions under the present regulations; but, very briefly, the arrangement already is that 50 per cent remission is available to the Commissioner for Housing for variations that affect housing acquired before the beginning of the Housing Assistance Act in 1987; that is, before 16 December 1987. So, it does not apply to all Housing properties, by any stretch of the imagination, but it does apply to those acquired before December 1987. This regulation merely continues that 50 per cent remission. It is strangely worded, I concede. It talks about 25 per cent of the added value; but you must remember that in section 184C of the Act there is already a 75 per cent remission provided for. So, another 25 per cent brings it back to 50 per cent, which is the existing arrangement.

Mr Moore: Which I disagree with.

MR HUMPHRIES: Which Mr Moore disagrees with; I concede that. But I would say to Mr Moore that it is important, at this particular juncture especially, for us to be aware that it is most important for us to encourage an environment of investment in the city of Canberra. Ultimately, I think, to favour the retention of high rates of betterment and the absence of remissions tends to discourage owners of land - - -

Mr Moore: It encourages unnecessary debate on it.

MR HUMPHRIES: It may be unnecessary, but I want to say it anyway. It tends to discourage owners of land from engaging in work which would attract a betterment fee. That is not the kind of thing we want to be doing at this point in our history. Maybe at other times, maybe when Canberra is booming, we can afford to say, "No, we do not need to remit betterment"; but at this particular point in time that is not true. I think, Mr Speaker, it is very appropriate that we be generous about such things, because we realise that such matters are very significant in decisions made by individual lessees to develop land and, in the process, to create jobs.

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