Page 2152 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

have looked at very closely. We have consulted industry on this. There have been some concerns raised, but we believe that they are manageable. Based on the answers that the minister’s office has given us, we are prepared to support these clauses. But I would just say that we do not want to see death by a thousand cuts. We want to see that this is not going to become an unreasonable process.

We think neighbours should know what is going on. In an academic sense in relation to code track, at one level, because certain requirements are met, there has not been deemed the need for notification of neighbours. Firstly, it is common courtesy. We would expect that people would do this of their own accord, but we know that in some cases that does not occur. That rightly causes some annoyance to people when they see something going on in an adjoining property that they had no awareness of prior to it going ahead. It is reasonable that neighbours are informed.

We asked questions in relation to alterations—whether it would include minor alterations, things such as decks and the like. That was a concern raised with us by, I believe, the MBA. I understand that that is not the case, that those kinds of minor alterations will not require notification. We think it is reasonable that something like a deck will not. That is something, again, we have been assured will not occur and for that reason we will not be opposing that particular clause.

We will be monitoring how this happens. I think it is reasonable that we rebalance these issues, but we take the view that the overall system should be supported in terms of ensuring that we streamline these processes where possible. We do not want to see undue delays because it is important for the development of our city, it is important for housing affordability and it is important for a very important industry—the property sector—that it is not unreasonably constrained.

That said, we very much support the property rights of individuals. When there are developments going on in their neighbourhood or developments going on next door to them, it is reasonable that there is at least some degree of consultation with them. Therefore we think the balance has been struck. That is why we will be supporting the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.


MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development): I present the following paper:

Statute Law Amendment Bill 2012—Revised explanatory statement.

I am advised that the version I tabled earlier contained an error.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video