Page 673 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The creation of the Land Development Agency was meant to provide solutions to affordable housing, as cited by the former planning minister. However, this aspiration fell completely short of its intended goal. Not only did government policy not achieve its goal but many would consider that this policy became a key factor in furthering the problem. The opposition supports the amendment to allow over-the-counter land sales but I take this opportunity to reiterate our concerns that it has only come after nearly two full terms of this government and after years of an identified housing affordability crisis.
The compliance issues within the bill are important, and I would like to touch on them for a moment. Whilst these amendments are largely process driven, they are clearly important. I have reviewed the minister’s comments on the issue and also the details of the bill. The ability of ACTPLA to ensure compliance with the building codes relevant to the development in question, in particular the requirement to enforce rectification orders, is, I believe, in the interests of not only the Canberra community but the building industry as well.
I have received feedback from the industry and consumers on numerous occasions that rectification orders have caused some concerns, and it is important that ACTPLA take a leading role in making this happen. With regard to the notification periods in process, there is a genuine need to remove unnecessary and time-consuming red tape. I was pleased to see ACTPLA and the ACT government, at large, recently receive an increase in funding on the back of the efficiency gains in the area of development applications.
The opposition does have some concern in relation to the removal of a territory plan variation once an estate plan has been established. As it is understood currently, there is the ability to change where certain elements of an estate plan are located, without a variation which, I believe, could cause some concern to consumers who have already purchased land within the building envelope. I acknowledge, however, on the other hand, the problem with requiring a variation in these circumstances.
I would just bring to the attention of the minister and the Assembly the concern over the ability of estate plans to be amended after people have bought in good faith. If I have misunderstood that, maybe the minister can clarify it when he is giving his speech. But, if that is the case, I think, short of another variation, we may need to look at what other mechanisms there are to avoid people buying and thinking that they are near the shops or near a certain facility and then finding out that that has been moved and, therefore, they have perhaps paid more than they otherwise would have or bought something that is inappropriate.
I draw that matter to the attention of the Assembly. I think I have understood it correctly as it will work. Whilst I think it is reasonable to remove the variation process because that can be a time-consuming process, you might need to look at whether there are other mechanisms to ensure that we do not have those perverse circumstances where people have purchased and not got the full value of their investment due to later changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .