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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1248 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

We know that there was a problem. If we look at the history of dual occupancy, those of us who have been around for a bit will know that the dual occupancy law came into being as a result of an inquiry of a predecessor of this Assembly some years ago. One of the recommendations of that inquiry was that dual occupancy should be permitted. It was intended to be perhaps for older people who did not want to leave their homes; who could not afford to stay where they were, with increasing rates and the like, and the only way that they could do so was to share their property with somebody else and spread the costs. There was also the requirement in some cases for older people to have a friend or relative living on the block because they were getting a little old and a little frail and did not want to leave their home; but they needed somebody handy that could assist them if they needed it. Those were the reasons why the dual occupancy law was put into place in the first instance. We know that that was later expanded and that there were some undesirable consequences. Of course, the worst case was the new suburb of Banks. The government of the day moved quickly to clamp down on that and, as Mr Humphries says, the number of applications for dual occupancies today has tapered off dramatically and, therefore, dual occupancy is probably no longer a problem.

What is Mr Moore's solution? Mr Moore's solution is to say that you can no longer have dual occupancy but that you can put four residential units on a block instead of two.

Mr Moore: You are misreading the legislation.

MR KAINE: I am not misleading anybody, Mr Moore. What you are doing is amending - I remind you; it is your own amendment, Mr Moore - the Act by deleting the word "two" and inserting "four". In other words, you can no longer put two residential units on a block but you can put four on it. That is exactly what your amendment proposes.

Mr Moore: That is not so.

MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, may I have your protection?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, certainly, Mr Kaine.

MR KAINE: I remind Mr Moore that I did not heckle him when he presented his Bill; I listened carefully to what he had to say. I think he might give me the same courtesy.

MR SPEAKER: You will have the right of reply, Mr Moore.

MR KAINE: Exactly. All I am doing is expressing my surprise that Mr Moore would put such an amendment forward, on those two grounds. What he is saying is that, if I live in a older house in Reid and in the future I want to build a second residential unit at the back and bring some people in to support me in my encroaching old age, that is not okay; but, if I invite a developer to come in, knock my house down and build four residential units on the block, that is okay. I do not see the rationality of that, particularly from someone like Mr Moore who is opposed to commercial development. He is opposed to

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