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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2004) . . Page.. 4025 ..

will always be transferred to a second and sometimes a third party. It is understood that that is the case.

I think it is incumbent upon us to cut down the cost. We always know that this is going to happen and there should not be a charge for something that is as natural in the building industry as breathing in and out is for the average person. The charge is unjust and we should ensure definitively today that it should not be there.

The other part of the amendment allows for what might be called a little bit of speculation but it also addresses the issue which I spoke of in the in-principle speech, where a mum and dad builder might buy a block to build their dream home on and a variety of circumstances might come into it—they are not covered by personal and financial circumstances—where they may wish to transfer the lease because, for a variety of reasons, they have decided that they cannot really face the arduous task of actually building a house, dealing with the subcontractors and things like that and they decide that it is not for them, or their circumstances may require that they move interstate or they just decide that they do not want the block of land; they have bought it and they feel that they cannot deal with it. The options now are to build something on it and then sell it or to surrender the lease and, as I have said before, lose money.

This provides them with another option Because we have put in here a stipulation that they cannot have transferred a lease in this way in the previous two years, we are making perfectly clear that this is not being done by those people who are speculating. There is a difference of agreement here as to whether speculation in land is a bad thing. The general view of the Assembly is that we should cut off all means of speculating in land. This is not speculating in land; this is again adding flexibility so that people who find themselves in circumstances where what seemed like a good idea six months ago is no longer a good idea can divest themselves of a block of land without undue penalty. The surrender path will be an undue penalty.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (12.29): Mr Speaker, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The authority currently does not impose a fee on the first transfer from a holding lease; so it is simply an unnecessary amendment.

I note that the opposition also brings into the debate the issue of stamp duty. Well, this amendment has nothing to do with stamp duty and, at the end of the day, charging for a transfer is not exactly an onerous impost in terms of the land transaction. I think that $264, or thereabouts, is the current charge for transfers beyond that first transfer of the holding lease to effectively the first lessee. It is not an appropriate amendment; it is an amendment that simply fails to recognise the current circumstances in which these matters are handled. There is very little compelling argument to say that there is a need for this type of law in this act.

MRS DUNNE (12.30): I will just draw members’ attention to clause 5, line 13, page 4, where it says:

A fee may be determined under s 287 for this provision.

That is the provision that relates to the issuing of the first lease.

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