Page 1998 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Leave granted.
MR BARR: I move amendment Nos 34 to 39 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
I have already addressed amendment 34 as a companion amendment to amendment 28. Amendment 35 revises clause 136 (2) (d) of the bill to replace “relevant code requirements” and “relevant merit criteria” with the words “relevant rules” and “relevant criteria”, and clarifies when a statement of environmental effects is required. As I have indicated before, the restructured territory plan refers to “rules” and “criteria” instead of “code requirements” and “merit criteria”. A statement of environmental effects will be required where a code, in the restructured territory plan, stipulates that an assessment is necessary. Companion amendments 36 and 39 revise clause 136 (2) (e) (i) and 136 (4) of the bill respectively to similarly replace “relevant code requirements” and “relevant merit criteria” with “relevant rules” and “relevant criteria”.
Amendment 37 modifies clause 136 (2) (f) of the bill to confirm that it only applies to nominal rent leases and does not apply to variations of a nominal rent lease where the change of use charge is not payable under clause 269 of the bill. The requirement in 136 (2) (f) for an assessment by an accredited valuer should only apply where the lease variation may incur a change of use charge—that is to variations of nominal rent leases other than a variation of leases to which clause 269 of the bill does not apply.
Amendment 38 revises clause 136 (2) (g) (iii) of the bill to replace the words “direct grant” with “direct sale”. This and related amendments update language to remove references to “direct grants of leases” and replace with a reference to “direct sales of leases” consistent with government proposals arising from the housing affordability strategy.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR BARR: As I was saying, this updates language to remove references to “direct grant” and to replace them with the words “direct sale”. Companion amendments are 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 141. These amendments substitute the words “direct grant” with the words “direct sale”. This is to modernise language and reflect the government’s housing affordability strategy. Finally, amendment 39 is, in fact, a companion amendment to amendment 35, again replacing “relevant code requirements” and “relevant merit criteria” with “relevant rules” and “relevant criteria”.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.00): I rise in support of these amendments. At last we are getting rid of the terminology “direct grant” when we have never meant direct grant. This raises an issue that has concerned me about the 160-odd amendments that the government has moved. When we did all the planning legislation reform, and after years of explaining to people that when we said “direct grant” we did not mean “direct grant”, we meant “direct sale”, we should have got it right in the first place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .