Page 1800 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is wrong for those opposite to suggest that the lease is some sort of blank cheque that people can use and under which they have rights that should not be subject to any other form of regulation. It is quite misleading to suggest that because other elements of regulation must come into play. For example, environment protection legislation must come into play. Just because your lease states that you can use land for any industrial use it does not mean that other regulation does not come into play. It does.
If, for example, somebody wanted to build a factory and they went through the process of environment protection regulation and, as part of that process, it was determined that the factory was too polluting, too noisy, too messy, or whatever it might be, they might not be able to proceed with it. Even though they have a right in the lease to use the land for particular purposes, other regulations still come into play. Mr Seselja mentioned the nightclub example, which is a good one.
Other impacts must still be assessed and taken into account. Use as development makes it clear that it is subject to that assessment process. It is not denying that use and it is not saying that that use is not available; it is saying that it is subject to assessment. I find it disturbing that those opposite argue that once you have the use of a lease it should not be subject to some form of regulation or assessment. Of course it should.
This in no way diminishes the rights of leaseholders. Leaseholders have uses, as set out in their lease. They purchased that bundle of rights and they are entitled to use them within the broader statutory framework that regulates activity. Essentially, that is what these changes seek to reinforce. The other very important element of this proposal is to recognise that there is a relationship between the leasehold administration and the statutory planning and assessment process.
There must be an understanding of and a clear link in the legislation between those two functions. They do not exist in isolation from one another; they exist in what hopefully will be a more coordinated manner as a result of these changes. It will make it clear that there is a relationship between the two. They do not exist in isolation and they should not operate in isolation or separate from one another; they should operate in unison and in conjunction with one another. We have a dual system of statutory land use planning and leasehold administration, and lease use controlled through the lease purpose courts, and that is what these changes seek to reflect. It is wrong for those opposite to suggest otherwise.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.49): This exercise has been a learning process for me. By the end of this debate I expect to have a much better understanding than I currently have of the planning system. It appears to me that how one stands on this issue depends on the change of use we are talking about. When I spoke earlier to Mr Seselja’s adviser I was given the example of a change of use from a hairdresser to a newsagent—a fairly innocuous change of use. When an example was given of a change of use from a restaurant to a nightclub I remembered the Kingston example.
At that time I was the only person in the Assembly who put up a case for such a change of use. No doubt whoever thought of this example was intelligent enough to remember that example. I am aware that some changes of use have caused some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .