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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3171 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I understand that the government is putting up amendments, particularly to allow developments to be exempted from this requirement for a survey certificate. That certainly is an improvement on the current wording, and if that amendment is supported we support this bill. It's a bit of a broad-brush Mr Rugendyke bill.

MR RUGENDYKE (3.32), in reply: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support for this bill. It is appropriate to point out that departmental officers and the Commissioner for Land and Planning were involved in the process in preparing this bill, and I appreciate the time, expertise and input offered from both offices and, of course, Parliamentary Counsel.

I have had discussions with various parties about ensuring that the application is not too broad, Ms Tucker. I acknowledge the constructive comments on this issue and foreshadow that I am comfortable with the intended government amendments. Having accurate survey details is a commonsense requirement. Inquiries that I have made in Queanbeyan reveal that they would certainly be necessary in development across the border.

As I stated in my presentation speech, there may well be cost implications, but the benefit of investing to get the information right in the first instance certainly outweighs the time, despair and expense in dealing with the fallout caused by architects working off old or incorrect information.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I have referred to this legislation as the Heycox bill after a family in my electorate who were put through the wringer due to a dual occupancy development being built according to incorrect siting details right outside their bedroom window. The AAT, the Ombudsman's office, PALM, the Commissioner for Land and Planning, solicitors, the Urban Services Minister and my office all became involved in their case at various stages. A registered survey certificate has the capacity to verify what the architect is saying and in the long run eliminate unnecessary disputes like the one I have just described. I thank members for their support.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs and Treasurer) (3.35): I ask for leave to move together the four amendments circulated by the government.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I present the supplementary memorandum and I move those amendments [see schedule 1 at page 3225].

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the amendments are in response to a problem. I do not believe that the bill is entirely clear about whether PALM may require a survey certificate to include such matters as, for example, land levels and gradients, services, corridors and easements, and attachments to buildings.

The amendments that I have just moved make it clear that land contours should be included, but it is not appropriate in our view to require a survey to address proposed buildings. That information should be dealt with in building plans and a site analysis plan, which is a document PALM will be

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