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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3962 ..

As I have indicated, the ACT leasehold system has always held that speculating on the sale of undeveloped land should not be allowed. The leasehold system is an important mechanism in assisting in the orderly development of the city. I put it to members that they have to think about what sort of suburbs they want to see developed in the ACT into the future. Do we want to see suburbs where some people simply sit on vacant, raw blocks of land and create an eyesore in the community? More importantly, do we want to penalise those people who develop land, houses and gardens—because that is what improves the value of the land? What improves the value of the land is investment anyway. Development of housing, development of gardens, streetscape, community—that is what increases the value of land. So, why should someone who has not made that investment, who has not invested in the land, seek to make a return out of it, effectively at the expense of those who have chosen to invest and improve the value of the land asset?

That is what this legislation is all about. As Mr Quinlan, as acting minister, advised members in his presentation speech, the current arrangements in section 180 of the land act, which cover transfer or assignment of leases that do not require consent, remain unchanged. This means that the majority of lease transfers undertaken each year, which are residential dwellings, are not affected by this legislation. These amendments are targeted at a small number of lease transfers of undeveloped residential land.

Single dwelling and small multi-unit residential leases are most attractive to land speculators because of the relatively small financial outlay involved to reap potentially large speculative profits. In addressing the issue of land speculation, the opportunity has been taken to ensure that the initial lease transfers that are a result of the subdivision of the holding lease are not affected. So, contrary to the opposition’s argument, there is no attempt to place a fee on the initial transfer from the land developer to the builder. That is the very clear intent and substance of this legislation.

Currently, the current provisions of section 180 and the disallowable instrument do not distinguish between this type of transfer and subsequent transfers. This has resulted in a requirement for the developer to provide a range of information, which, for this transaction, is simply not necessary. That is because in these circumstances this first transfer is necessary for the development of the lease to commence. It is therefore not sensible to apply these provisions in those circumstances.

The amendments to the act provide for these types of transfers under a new subsection (2A) of section 180. This is separate from the transfers under subsection (2) to which the new disallowable instrument will apply. This is a sensible streamlining of the current administrative process and will be a benefit to both the developer and the purchaser. As members are aware, the critical information for the operation of these amendments is contained in the disallowable instruments, which have been provided to members for their information. The instrument for subsection (2) of section 180 will enable the ACT Planning and Land Authority to require a range of information from the existing lessee.

While it is important for the authority to be assured that the proposed lessee can comply with the building and development provisions, it is equally important to consider the reasons why the existing lessee is unable to comply with those provisions. These amendments clearly provide for consideration of personal and financial hardship. More

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