Page 260 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: The original one has gone.
MR WOOD: Yes. It was thought to be going through last year, so we have had to revise that. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
UNIT TITLES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 16 December 1992, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.44): Again the Opposition has no difficulty with what the Minister is attempting to achieve. I note that the Minister has brought forward some amendments to his original Bill. I believe that they resulted from a discussion I had with him after the original Bill was tabled. I had some reservations in only one respect. Where there is a corporation of only two people and a decision to subdivide the title and do all sorts of other things associated with it is under consideration, the original Bill said that there would be convened a general meeting, that if there was not a quorum, which was two, a second meeting would be convened, and if at that second meeting there still was not a quorum the one person present could take a decision.
I was concerned that this would normally be the case where there was a husband and wife who were moving to dual occupancy or to break their title up in some fashion. I saw the possibility that the husband and wife may well be separated and may not agree on what should be done. The original Bill would have provided that one of the two people, even though they were in disagreement, after the calling of the second meeting could simply make the decision anyway, to the detriment of the other party. The Minister took that point, and he has put forward an amendment that prevents that occurring. That removes my only difficulty with the Bill as it was presented. The Bill, along with the amendments the Minister will propose, is acceptable to the Opposition.
MS SZUTY (4.46): I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill because I see it as a significant move that the ACT Legislative Assembly will be making. I support the Government's move to allow suburban blocks to be subdivided into separate unit titles. This gives land-holders the ability to contribute to the sensible and ordered increase in urban density that the Government wants to promote through its so-called urban renewal policy. I say "so-called" because, to date, we have not seen a policy document. I have instead been referred to several documents, including the submission to the Industry Commission review of taxation and financial policy impact on urban settlement. We all know, of course, that the commission in its report of 10 December commented critically about the financial gains of urban consolidation, and I will be keen to hear from the Labor Government what changes they will be making to their infill policies in the light of the commission's findings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .