Page 4225 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At present you would need to apply for a lease purpose change to do that. Under this proposed system you would have to apply for a lease purpose change also; there is no doubt about that. So, we would still have those two levels of bureaucracy, but the lease purpose change would be certain with the proposed system.
Let me explain how this methodology would cost the community millions and millions of dollars in the long term. If somebody applied for a change of purpose under this zoning system, first of all they would have to pay their betterment tax. On the sliding scale which was introduced by the Alliance Government and which is still supported by Labor, that is a 50 per cent cost for any building that is over 25 years old. That being the case, we could expect to see a single chance of betterment, throwing away 50 per cent of what the community is entitled to. I know that we have debated that issue before, so I do not want to pursue that.
But, with this initial change of purpose, anybody applying for a change of purpose, who did not cover all the possibilities, would be very, very naive. So, instead of getting betterment on a lease twice or three times, there would be a single chance for that betterment tax to be paid; hence, the community would be losing more and more money. That is just the residential zone.
What would happen at Calwell, in the situation of which we are all aware, where a resident should have had the right of appeal? I think many of us have said that under the new legislation we would expect residents to have the right of appeal. I certainly heard Mr Connolly say that in a speech at the site. What would happen? Under this proposed legislation and this proposed Territory Plan they would be in the same boat as before. They would probably be at a greater disadvantage: There would be no possibility for appeals, although there ought to be a possibility for appeals. Having appeals would be an appropriate way to go, but it is one of the great weaknesses of this proposed legislation. (Extension of time granted)
I should point out at this stage that there are many positive aspects to this plan and the legislation. But I think, as far as the debate goes, it is appropriate for me to use the short time that I have to highlight the aspects that I consider will cause the most difficulty and the most problems and indicate where I think changes need to be made.
In my dissenting report from the joint committees' report on the planning legislation I made it clear that I believed that it was entirely inappropriate for the Chief Planner and the person in charge of leasehold to go through a bureaucracy to the Minister, particularly in the situation that we have in the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning where the Chief Planner's responsibility goes
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .