Page 2309 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think the next area of reform in this regard is in relation to how the system operates outside these areas. We do need to take a comprehensive look at finding that balance. I am constantly approached by people, not just developers, not just builders, but sometimes owner-builders, looking to put on minor extensions, make minor changes to their homes, and the kind of angst that is sometimes experienced when neighbours appeal or when other third parties appeal is significant. Sometimes it adds to the costs, but sometimes there is just a lot of angst in getting what should be fairly simple things through. I think that is going to be the next thing.
Dr Foskey categorises this situation by saying that corporations can get tax deductions when they have legal costs. That is all well and good, but that does not justify adding $50,000, $100,000 or $150,000 to the cost of a development, potentially scuttling it and therefore adding to the cost to the buyers and to renters. That applies just as much to small builders. It applies also to people looking to do minor changes to their homes, extensions and the like. So it affects the big end of town, it affects medium-size enterprises and it affects the small end of town. I think that needs to be taken into account. This regulation goes some way to changing things. I do not think it is the whole answer. I think it may need to be amended much more in the future. But we certainly cannot support this disallowance for all of the reasons that I have put.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.23): Mr Speaker, the government will be, of course, standing by its regulation today and opposing Dr Foskey’s proposal to disallow it. This regulation was made because the government saw an emerging and very worrying trend in the way developments in our commercial centre, Civic, our town centres and our industrial areas were increasingly being obstructed by commercial rivals.
Dr Foskey and, indeed, other members are critical in this place from time to time—not always, but from time to time—of decisions that I make to exercise my powers under the act to determine or call in a development application. I can say very clearly that in the overwhelming majority of cases over 90 per cent of all of the cases, where I have exercised a call in—it has been done on 15 to 18 occasions; I cannot recall the exact number—it has been in response to requests from a development proponent who was facing opposition to their commercial development from commercial rivals.
That, I think, says a lot about how the development industry sometimes has a double-faced argument. It argues for certainty and consistency with the rules, but at least some parts of the development community are equally happy to use the opportunities available to them under planning law to frustrate commercial rivals. That is something which I think is quite unacceptable.
If a development proponent comes forward and lodges a development application which is consistent with the planning controls that we as a community, we the Assembly, have agreed to through the territory plan and through the provisions of the Land Act, which is consistent with those controls, why should a commercial rival seek to hinder or delay the commencement of that project through third party appeal? If it is only $150 for a residents’ association, it is not a lot of money for them: $150 is nothing for a development company, for a large property-owning organisation, to go to the AAT and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .