Page 1791 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a definition of the word “orderly”. However, it should be noted that this clause reflects the wording of the commonwealth's Australian Capital Territory Planning and Land Management Act. As such, the government will not be supporting Dr Foskey.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.07): The opposition will not be supporting Dr Foskey. The object of the act is quite a reasonable one, regardless of whether it is the same as what has gone before or otherwise. To have development in any other way that was not consistent with social, environmental and economic aspirations and in accordance with sound financial principles would be somewhat ludicrous. These object clauses tend to be ignored most of the time, it must be said, except for broad interpretation from certain judges. I do not think it is going to have significant impact, but we would be broadly comfortable with the wording in clause 6.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.08): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1812]. This is the first in a series of amendments that I have circulated. They go to one of the fundamental problems with this bill as we see it—the issue to which I alluded in my speech on the agreement in principle. Our problem with this—and we will be moving to delete several other clauses as a result of this—is this concept that the minister and I and others have spoken about in this debate already, of use as development, which is being introduced as part of this bill. I will speak, firstly, about our concerns with the bill as it stands now and, secondly, in relation to the bill after the proposed government amendments that will change the concept somewhat and change the scope and the nature of it. I would like to speak to both.
The first issue is use as development, which has been introduced. Essentially, this concept takes existing use rights in a lease. One of the fundamentals of our system is that even though we do not have freehold, we have a fair amount of certainty around the bundle of rights that are purchased when someone purchases a lease. That has been a longstanding principle. It is important in order to create certainty. So that bundle of rights has withstood the test of time. It has allowed a person to know when they purchase a piece of land or when they acquire a lease that they have certain rights to do certain things.
That is always subject to development approval, where that is necessary, where there is construction work or where there is significant altering of the structure. But the reality is that the use is protected, and that is the important principle that we see being changed here as a result of this bill. It essentially takes away some of that certainty that purchasers or leaseholders currently enjoy knowing what their rights are, knowing there are certain rights that they should be able to take up—subject, of course, to development approval, but that is to do with the impact of the development itself rather than the use as such.
The government has announced upfront, and I referred to it in my earlier speech, this concept of integrating leasing and development provisions for efficiency savings. We are not convinced that this will have the kind of significant efficiency savings that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .