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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1249 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

commercial development. I find it a little odd that what he is doing is doing away with dual occupancy, despite the reasons why it was brought in in the first place. I know that he was a supporter of it then, because he was a member of the committee that recommended it.

Mr Moore: No, I was not.

MR KAINE: I think you were, but I stand corrected if you were not. I believe that at the time you supported dual occupancy. Now he has had a change of heart. I am a bit surprised that he is the author of this amendment. Having said that, I must say that Mr Humphries has put forward what I think is a commendable suggestion. The solution to this is public consultation. Let us find out what the public wants. Mr Humphries is proposing that it go to the planning advisory committees in the suburbs. That is a good idea. I am pleased that the Labor Party has introduced an element of rationality in this debate by supporting the Minister. We will at least know, at the end of the day, what the community wants rather than perhaps what Mr Moore wants; and we will know why they want it. I must say that I am confounded that, and I cannot understand why, Mr Moore wants to do away with dual occupancy but at the same time say that it is okay to build four units on the same block. I support the Minister in his proposal to refer it for public consultation.

MS HORODNY (11.17): Mr Moore's proposal is to amend the Unit Titles Act so that the minimum number of dwelling units that can be unit titled within a single block is increased from two to four.

Mr Moore: I am glad that somebody understands the legislation.

MS HORODNY: Thank you.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms Horodny has the call.

MS HORODNY: This would return the Unit Titles Act to its original form, which was amended in 1993. The Unit Titles Act was originally intended to apply only to medium-density housing developments. The 1993 amendment to the Act to reduce the minimum number of units from four to two was made to facilitate the building of dual occupancies as a way of encouraging urban consolidation, as the amendment allowed for two dwellings to be owned and sold independently. Prior to this, a home owner could build a second dwelling on a block only to rent out, and both dwellings had to be sold at the same time as part of the sale of the block as a whole. This amendment prompted the expansion in the number of dual occupancies approved across Canberra. About a third, as we all know, were in Tuggeranong; and a quarter were in Central Canberra.

Ms McRae: How many, Lucy?

Mr Moore: About 600.

Ms McRae: That is what the HIA says. What a joke!

MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms Horodny has the call.

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