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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1252 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There is also the notion put up that this is something done in isolation; that it is done without consultation. What absolute nonsense! Of course, it was done with consultation. Mr Wood, appropriately, appointed Mr Robert Lansdown to head an inquiry into this whole issue of dual occupancy. He came back with a package of reforms which said, "This is how you deal with the matter". This is one of the reforms. Ms Horodny said, "It does not go further than what Mr Lansdown suggested". It is exactly what Mr Lansdown suggested. It does not stop dual occupancy. The people who have the need for dual occupancy because of a frail relative, or because of a family preference, will still have the opportunity under this system. That was the system until 1993, and quite a number of dual occupancies were built under that system. That notion of lack of consultation certainly is not the case.

Mr Humphries points out that in the last 18 months about 40 applications have been received. We would probably find that those 40 applications are fairly focused on Central Canberra. I think we would find that those 40 applicants are people who are looking for redevelopment, for a whole series of reasons. But we are talking about 18 months where the housing industry has plummeted quite significantly and where there has been an oversupply of housing. Of course, they are not going to get applications at this time, and that is why it is that this is actually a quite reasonable time to introduce legislation which would have this effect.

Mr Humphries was also concerned about what is, in one sense, a retrospective effect. I said to him, in our discussions, that I was quite happy - and the Housing Industry Association is as well - to consider an amendment to this legislation, which will not be necessary now because it is not going to pass, which would have allowed the title of existing dual occupancies, or dual occupancies that had already been approved as of the date that the legislation passed, to be subdivided. It is an issue about redevelopment for greed rather than need; that was what this piece of legislation was always about. Those issues of public consultation and prohibition altogether simply are not true. There was appropriate public consultation - quite extensive public consultation - through the Lansdown report and the issue of doing this in isolation is also not true. Mr Lansdown provided a package of reforms, and this is one of those reforms that ought to have been put in with that full package.

I think Ms McRae suggested that the Liberal Party had in its policy that they would support this. Mr Speaker, when I introduced the legislation, I think I read a press release which was put out in your name, I believe, and which actually exempted this part of the Lansdown report. I had understood that this was not Liberal Party policy. However, I had hoped that I would be able to convince you of the good sense of this system of moving away from a random system of not planning to a system of ensuring that we know where things are going and why they are being redeveloped in a planning system.

I thank my colleagues on the crossbenches, the Greens. Mr Osborne had indicated his support for the legislation as well. I think this is another case where the Labor and Liberal parties have been significantly influenced by a small number of lobbyists within the community, particularly in the housing industry, and this will prove to be a bad decision. However, there is always the chance that we may well come back to the Assembly with this sort of proposal, hopefully before things start going too wrong.

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