Page 1773 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Two other significant concerns relate to the issue of the mortgage of leasehold subject to building and development provision—consent to mortgage—and the transfer of land subject to building and development provision. Clause 291, which is replicating a clause in the current legislation, has the effect of making it unlawful for people to consolidate their credit cards into their mortgages. The former planning minister, when quizzed on this issue, and on why a clause which was not enforced was maintained, answered that perhaps it was time to start enforcing this clause. Many Canberrans would shudder at this answer. I certainly welcome the fact that the proposed government amendments will remove this. I think that is a significant step. It was a bad law, a useless law and an outdated law. I do not think we should maintain rules and laws which are not enforced and for which there is no good public policy reason. So I commend the government for having moved on that, and I certainly commend the new minister for taking a somewhat different approach from his predecessor on this issue.
Clause 292 restricts the transfer of a lease without a certificate of compliance, except in limited circumstances. The limited circumstances include where financial hardship exists. We have concerns about this clause and we will be moving an amendment during the detail stage in relation to it. Needless to say, however, we do not see the usefulness of this clause. Certainly, if the concern is around land not being developed or being held onto indefinitely, there are other ways of enforcing that. This clause is not necessary and that is why we will be opposing it.
The Liberal opposition renews its objection to the operations of the Land Development Agency. We will therefore be opposing clauses which establish the agency. I will explain our opposition to the LDA during the detail stage, but broadly it relates to the disastrous experiment of a monopoly government land developer and the terrible effects this experiment has had on many Canberra home buyers, particularly first home buyers.
Given the cognate status of this debate, I will touch briefly on the two other bills that are before the Assembly today. The opposition will be supporting the Planning and Development (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. As has already been mentioned, the more significant issues will be debated within the primary piece of legislation, the Planning and Development Bill. However, it should be noted that it is critical at all times to maintain consistency with other territory legislation. In the context of a completely new planning system for the territory, it is beholden on both the government and the opposition to ensure that the system is given every opportunity for success and complies with all other relevant legislation. The majority of the amendments are of a technical nature and, as stated, the opposition will support the adjustment and alteration of the other legislation generally and the bill as a whole, although I believe there will be some amendments, consequential to my proposed amendments to the main bill, which will apply to the Planning and Development (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007.
The opposition will also be supporting the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. As has already been noted, the bill will assist in the implementation of the planning system reform project, including the removal of the duplication of development approval and the building approval. While this will mean a reduction in the financial
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .