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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4023 ..

enough flexibility in the system to deal with genuine cases. However, it certainly does not allow for builders to assume they could transfer a lease within a year to another builder and would undermine any scheme built on an assumption that such a process can increase the profitability and the sale price of home development.

MRS DUNNE (12.17): I can read the numbers. I know that this is going to fail, but I need to put on the record that the arguments put forward by the minister and the crossbenchers show a fundamental lack of understanding of how the building industry in the ACT works. The building industry in the ACT, whether you like it or not, is one of the principal economic drivers.

The minister himself said that this mechanism would provide open-ended and ongoing access to the power to speculate. The clear reading of the words shows that it is not open-ended and is not ongoing, because if, in the first year—therefore, in the period of time which is available to a builder to commence work as set down by the requirements of the lease—the principal is in breach of that part of the lease it does not apply.

I think Ms Dundas said that, if builders acquire more land than they can reasonably deal with, they always have the option of surrendering. The changes, as they currently apply, mean that on almost every occasion somebody who chooses to surrender a block of land will lose money. Not only is this trying to stop people speculating, it is actually designed in such a way that, if for some reason you overextend, you will lose money on the deal. You will always lose money on the deal.

This is not an anti-speculation measure; this is a measure that will ensure that builders who, for whatever reason, buy four blocks when they can only build on three—we are not necessarily talking about large consortiums; we are talking about mum and dad builders here—will lose money. They might buy half a dozen blocks but can build on only three or four of them within the time limit. As a result, they will inevitably be losing money. The decision of this Assembly today will ensure that they lose money.

There are personal and financial constraint provisions later in the bill, but there is no guarantee—and it is certainly one of the things that have been said to me by the building industry—that those provisions will be used in these circumstances. It is not personal financial hardship; it is something beyond the financial burden. They may not have building indemnity insurance that allows them to do it. That is not a personal or a financial hardship.

If this amendment is to fail, I need, and the building industry needs, a commitment in this place from this minister that those personal and financial hardship provisions will be interpreted generously and not in a constrained way. That direction needs to come from this place on this day so that the people putting together the guidelines and the people making the decision understand that this Assembly considers that there are sufficient provisions there but that they must not be interpreted so narrowly because as they currently stand, as they are currently written, there is no guarantee that, for instance, a person who cannot obtain building indemnity insurance to build that last project will be able to avail themselves of the provisions of personal and financial hardship and that they will not be forced to surrender the block of land and lose their shirt.

Proposed new clauses 4A and 4B negatived.

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