Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2014 Week 2 Hansard (20 March) . . Page.. 627..
circumstances and put in place a mechanism that was fair both to those who had paid their extension of time fees and to those who were not in a position to do so as a result of that particular issue.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: If that was fair, why will you not apply the same retrospective principle to land rent lessees who signed up pre 1 October 2013 who are seeking the current land rent rules?
MR BARR: Because there is no disadvantage to those under the original scheme.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Minister, what is the difference between the conditions for extension of time fees and the land rent changes?
MR BARR: Quite considerable differences.
MR SMYTH: Minister, what is the quantum of extension of time fees waived through the stimulus package?
MR BARR: $1 million.
Housing—land rent scheme
MR SMYTH: My question is also to the Minister for Economic Development. Minister, following up on a question on 19 March regarding the sale of a land rent contract for $35,000 advertised on allhomes regarding an undeveloped block at 21 Dooley Binbin Street in Bonner, as you have advised that it is legally possible to sell such a contract, is this a policy oversight or did you intend for land rent lessees to make a profit not from the sale of the land but from the sale of the contract itself?
MR BARR: No, it is not a policy oversight and the question of whether any profit is made has certainly not been proven.
MR SMYTH: Minister, what does the government have in place to prevent people abusing this scheme as a profit-making business?
MR BARR: An extensive range of rules and regulations.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Coe.
MR COE: Minister, is the government aware of other similar cases, and how many since the establishment of the scheme?
Next page . .
Previous page. . . .
Speeches . . . .
Contents . . . .
Sittings . . . .