Page 1799 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us face it, in the main current investment is being driven by the federal government and by federal departments expanding. I say “Well done!” to the Howard government. If members want to have that argument I have another speech that I can trot out and I can speak for 20 minutes on federal government investment. I can refer to two highway upgrades, to upgrades to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to upgrades to the Office of the Attorney-General and to upgrades to the mint. Do members want to talk about that? Let us not go there. Let us have a sensible discussion and I hope a sensible outcome from the minister.
When we finish with these bills sometime on Thursday and key groups from the property council and the law society, and other key industry building groups and groups representing business that see this legislation as fundamental end up dissatisfied, we will not have achieved what we wanted to achieve. This opposition, unlike previous oppositions that stood in the way of every reform, has been constructive. The minister appears to have some answers; so I am sure he will jump to his feet and answer my questions. People are concerned about these issues. I predict that we will have to revisit this issue because what is being done tonight is fundamental and not required.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.43): I just sought clarification on what I understood to be the case. I am advised that this happens in all other states and territories. In other jurisdictions it is more onerous. If we break the use we might, in fact, lose that use. In the ACT we always have the right to that use. This is an attempt to incorporate leasehold into the DAF model, which is entirely consistent.
Mr Smyth: Consistent with DAF?
MR BARR: Yes. The advice I have from the chief planning executive is that that is the case. I have responded, Mr Smyth, to your two issues.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (8.44): This is probably one of the most debated elements of the reform package. It has been ever since the proposals were first put out for public comments some time ago. In this debate it is important to remember that the ACT has a leasehold system. Since self-government the leasehold system has been coupled to a statutory planning system. So since self-government we have not had the notion of pure leasehold, if you like, where use is managed entirely through the lease.
Even before self-government a range of other instruments were used by the NCDC to determine uses and to regulate development activity within particular areas. For a very long time in this territory there has not been reliance solely upon leasehold to manage and to regulate use; it has been coupled with other instruments. Since self-government and since the introduction of the territory plan it has been coupled with the territory plan. So a statutory land use planning framework and a leasehold administration are occurring in unison.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .