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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 371 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Nobody knows exactly where they are going to occur, when they are going to occur, how many are going to occur on any block, and how they will change the whole ambience and character of the neighbourhood. That is why there has been so much concern about this issue.

The legislation simply says that, where the proposal is to divide a single block into three, that simply will not be allowed to change the title. People whose parents are growing older and who wish to have them fairly close but not so close that they are in the same house would still be able to have a second dwelling on the block but would not be able to divide that and sell the two separately. This is provided they met the guidelines in terms of dual occupancy as they were originally intended when they were put out by the NCDC over a decade ago.

The piece of legislation I present today is indeed a step to correct the problems we have seen with dual occupancy. It ought to be recognised as a positive move in ensuring the orderly development of Canberra, protecting what is important to people, particularly those living in older suburbs, who are interested in the ambience of their neighbourhood, the particular characteristics of their neighbourhood, and who wish to keep it that way. We should remember that those people who are interested in dual occupancy from a developer's perspective often argue that they have invested a certain amount of money in order to do this kind of development. We must not forget that almost everybody who opposes any specific dual occupancy is trying to protect their own investment, which is usually their total lifetime savings and lifetime investment in their own home. That is why there are such strong feelings associated with this issue of dual occupancy. This does not stop dual occupancy, but it certainly stops the development of dual occupancy based on greed rather than need. I commend the legislation to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.


MR OSBORNE (10.42): I present the Liquor (Amendment) Bill 1996, together with its explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.


That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

This is my first piece of legislation to be considered by the Assembly and, although it is a simple Bill, I am pleased that it has the potential to impact significantly on our city. The intention of this Bill is to allow the Assembly the capacity to regulate the hours for alcohol sales in the ACT. I feel that the time has come for such regulations to be made. As members will be well aware, the limitations I am calling for are to disallow liquor sales between the hours of 3.00 am and 7.00 am across all of Canberra, applicable at every type of licence.

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