Page 1793 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
entitled to when they purchased their lease? This is still a significant concern to industry. It is a concern to us, and I think it is very important that we get this right.
We will be moving a number of further amendments as a result of this. I will not talk at length to all of them but, essentially, this is the concept, and this is where we are differing from the government. It has gone some of the way. It is an improvement, it is better than it was, but it still leaves us open to a lot of uncertainty. I still think it will undermine our leasehold system, and that is a real concern. That should be of concern to the government. That may not be the intention, I am not quite sure, but that is the fear of many experienced practitioners. It is the fear of the law society. It is the fear of the property council. It is the fear of the MBA and those who deal with these issues day to day. That is why we are moving these amendments. We will push these amendments, and seek the support of the crossbench and the government, because this would improve and fix things and prevent us from going down a path that I do not think we want to go down.
It would be a real pity if what could be a positive reform was undermined by what may be a significant limitation in this bill. It may be a significant change that we do not want and perhaps has not been canvassed in the broader sense. We have not, as part of this, taken a good look at the leasehold system. As I said, that is a different debate. We could argue about whether the leasehold system is still relevant as it is. But I do not think this is the change that is going to get us over the line. I do not think this is the change that is going to improve things. That is why we are moving this amendment, and will move several subsequent amendments. I seek the support of the Assembly for them.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.18): The government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. I understand the issues that Mr Seselja has raised. It is an interesting debate and one that goes to balance and how to balance community interests against those of the development lobby. The phrase “use as development” refers to a refined and altered definition of development. It will allow the impact of the use or change of use of land on the community to be properly assessed and considered before any development approval is granted. Applying use as development principles will mean that development approval will be required when someone wants to add a new building to land and there is no use approval already applying to that land, or when someone wants to start a new use or change a use and building work is required.
The key benefits for the ACT community that flow from this change are that it protects the community from inappropriate development on leases at some point in the future. Development approvals and lease variations will be able to be granted more quickly. It will speed the process, because the territory’s leasing and development assessment systems will be better integrated. It will also allow the restructured territory plan to transparently and accountably regulate land use. This proposal does not affect use rights in leases. The government has been careful, through the amendments that I will be moving shortly, to preserve existing use rights. It will ensure for any new leases that uses authorised on a lease can continue to operate. However, for existing and new leases development approval may be needed so that the impact of changed use involving building work can be assessed and managed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .