Page 3680 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015

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

Levy Act, the Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act, the Land Rent Act, the Planning and Development Act, the Residential Tenancies Act and the Taxation Administration Regulation.

Of particular note, these amendments cover the fact that usually a house has to have an energy efficiency rating under the Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003. However, clearly, if the house is being sold to the government for demolition, an EER should not be required. It is the same for a number of other reports which are required for sale of property in usual circumstances.

This is a highly unusual situation whereby over 1,000 houses will be sold albeit to the government and, therefore, normal requirements that have been designed over the years for the safety, fairness and clarity of the purchasers are not necessary in these unique circumstances. This obviously makes sense. It is a very practical measure, this element around EERs and the like, because, clearly, there would be no value in spending the several hundred dollars it costs on an EER for a house that is about to be demolished. I am quite supportive of that.

I did hear parts of Mr Hanson’s earlier comments around this issue of the impacted properties. I think this is a particularly tricky area, but there is no doubt that this has to be dealt with. We are determined to resolve this issue once and for all and leaving houses where there is the prospect that contamination has occurred I do not think is a tenable situation. So I am supportive of these amendments as well because we do need to do this job once and for all and be very clear with people up-front as much as we can. I hope that people who are affected in this situation or impacted—that is perhaps the word I should use—will appreciate the government’s best endeavours to assist them.

MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (6.12): I thank the Chief Minister for his contribution, his advice. It appears there has been confusion. We have received information from a number of constituents—this is their understanding of it, people who are affected by it or potentially affected—and this is the advice I have received. When my staff received a briefing, they did not have access to the amendment. The amendment had not been circulated, and since we did not see it until yesterday, my staff were given advice that led them to the understanding that the rules were going to be applied exactly the same way as they are for the existing scheme. That reflects some of the words that were made by the Chief Minister in tabling the amendment.

The point of clarification is good. I will take the Chief Minister at his word that the date of valuation of the property will be a more current date, an up-to-date date. That is not the impression that my staff received and certainly, as I understand it, it is not the impression that a number of affected property owners are under. Unfortunately, as I said, this was circulated mid-yesterday. It has been done in a pretty hurried fashion. We had not got the amendment before having the brief from the task force, and that has led to some confusion, I guess, as to what the intent of this is. The legislation or the amendment itself is silent on this matter but just simply gives the view that this will be treated as per the existing scheme. As we know, the existing scheme has a

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