Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 28 August 2008) . . Page.. 4012 ..
(Question No 2154)
Dr Foskey asked the Chief Minister, upon notice, on 7 August 2008:
(1) Why are (a) existing home owners and (b) non-ACT residents allowed to participate in the Moderate Income Land Ballot;
(2) Why are bidders not required to be present at the ballot;
(4) What checks are made to ensure low income eligibility;
(5) Are investment earnings, for example monies from rental properties, taken into account along with salary earnings;
(6) Will checks be made that once the home is completed on land acquired in a ballot, the property will not be rented out for, say a certain length of time;
(7) How many homes have been built and are still occupied by the successful participants in the land ballot since its inception.
Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) Existing home owners were not eligible to participate in the Moderate Income Land Ballot. Non-ACT residents who met the income and other eligibility criteria were allowed to participate in recognition of the ACT’s role in the broader region and economic development activities to encourage people to relocate to the ACT.
(2) As a courtesy to eligible persons and in recognition of the fact that the individual employment conditions of moderate and low income earners may not allow the individuals time off to attend the actual ballot, a form of authority was available that allowed registrants to send a representative on their behalf if they were unable to attend the ballot in person.
(4) Checks were undertaken by the ACT Revenue office to ensure the eligibility of purchasers.
(5) Persons with rental properties were not eligible to participate in Moderate Income Land Ballots.
(6) This was not a feature of the MILB scheme.
(7) The ACT Government does not hold this information. Construction is still underway on some blocks which were purchased as part of the last Moderate Income Land Ballot.
(Question No 2156)
Dr Foskey asked the Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, upon notice, on 7 August 2008:
(1) Has the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) ever taken prosecution action