Page 1287 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The members of this party, this Residents Rally party, Mr Speaker, are anti-jobs, anti-workers, anti-economic development of this Territory, and we have seen today further evidence of their role in this, their lack of concern for workers and building workers, their lack of concern to see that jobs are created for the young people in this community.
The Government is concerned about the effects on the development industry in the ACT of the Supreme Court decision in relation to the application by Concrete Constructions to change the permitted uses of the former Canberra Times site in Braddon. I intend to explain the basis of that concern and indicate how the Government proposes to address problems that arise from that decision.
Land tenure in the ACT is governed by the leasehold system and in many respects that system has served the ACT well. It has, however, become overregulatory in some ways. That overregulation is not necessary for the leasehold system to work well and to continue to provide safeguards of the public interest.
The recent Canberra Times site case is illustrative of how the present leasehold system is overregulated. Under the City Area Leases Act, changes of lease purpose, other than minor variations, require that the matter should be decided in the Supreme Court of the ACT. Following legal interpretations and precedents, that court has given a wide array of persons the opportunity to oppose applications for lease purpose changes.
Further, the court receives very little guidance from the law as to what should be taken into account in deciding whether a variation is justified. The court has chosen to develop its own way of handling this which allows it to take a diverse range of matters into account and gives it full discretion as to the weight to be given to particular arguments and issues.
This process is cumbersome, complex, time-consuming and expensive. More importantly, from a land user's point of view, the outcome is uncertain. Those limitations are not necessary to protect the public interest. They can only serve to discourage legitimate land uses and stifle welcome and much needed economic development. They are also a great boon to the legal profession. Some have a vested interest in this.
Those limitations do adversely affect employment opportunities in the ACT, both in constructing facilities and also in attracting economic activity to the ACT. People who criticise the present understandable concern of trade unions representing workers in the construction industry often do so from a much more stable employment or income situation than those whose jobs are on the line.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .