Page 1772 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I come to the last issue which, from the law society’s point of view is probably the most important issue. The law society is faced with a very unusual position. This relates to the issue of use as development. I am sure you have heard ad nauseam about the concept.
The society’s position is that it is unable to support the bill if the concept of use as development remains. As I have mentioned before, I have been appearing before this committee for many years. This is the first time that statement has ever been made. It is not made without due consideration and regard.
Lastly, and importantly from this point of view, is ensuring orderly planning by lease purpose clauses.
Mr del Rio goes on to quote the following passage from the report into the ACT leasehold system:
In our opinion this reason—being the orderly planning by lease purpose clauses—also remains relevant. However, for the leasehold system to deliver orderly planning in the ACT, lease purpose clauses need to be clear and unambiguous, rigorously enforced, reviewed and amended when appropriate to encourage desired redevelopment, and not overridden by a statutory zoning plan.
Mr del Rio stated that the Law Society of the ACT for the first time would not be able to support a bill and would withdraw its support for the piece of legislation on the basis of the concept of use as development. While the government has flagged amendments to this part of the bill, I do not believe that they go far enough. I will touch on that in a moment. I do commend the government for having listened to that significant concern that has been raised. I acknowledge that it has moved, and I think that is an improvement. My contention is that the government has not moved far enough to take away that concept and to avoid the perception or the reality that the leasehold system and the rights of leaseholders would be undermined by this bill.
My understanding of the effect of the changes is that whereas in the bill as it stands use is automatically treated as development, regardless of whether a development approval would ordinarily be required, the taking up of a use will only trigger the need for a development approval if a development approval would ordinarily be required. This is an improvement, as I said. However, the problem with the proposed amendment is that, in the latter circumstances outlined, use will still be considered and assessed separately from the development application; that is, once it is triggered, both are considered—both the development application and the issue around use. That is still a significant concern for a number of industry groups in relation to this legislation, notwithstanding the flagged government amendments. It is our contention that, although this is an improvement, it would still undermine certainty and potentially take away use rights which are legitimately purchased by landholders.
The property council and the Master Builders Association remain opposed to these provisions, as well as a number of other significant industry groups. Despite the disdain shown recently by members of the government—the Chief Minister in particular—for industry groups, particularly the property council, these voices are important as they will be dealing with this system day to day. We are opposed to the concept for these reasons. Even with the amendments, the concept remains, and we will therefore oppose it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .