Page 1801 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
communities a great deal of distress. A person who bought a house near a florist would not be very happy if that shop became a gaming room or something like that.
Mrs Dunne: The land use policy would not allow it.
DR FOSKEY: All the things that opposition members say might be true but it is clear to me, in representing the community in these debates, that it is probably better for me to vote with the government.
Mrs Dunne: Knock me down with a feather! I was waiting for that one.
DR FOSKEY: As I said, Mrs Dunne, some of us have been at this for years. Some of us have even been shadow ministers for planning. I hope that such people have a good understanding of the system. I am not one of those people.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.52): For a moment I was sure that I had the support of Dr Foskey but I lost her somewhere along the line. For a moment I thought I had the support of the development lobby and the anti-development lobby all in one go. Nevertheless, let me respond to a couple of things that have been said. While we are harping on it I will go back to the nightclub example. It is interesting that the former minister is now in the chamber. The government has called on the big guns to come into the chamber and explain it to us.
It was good to hear Mr Corbell’s input. However, I think it undermined what Mr Barr was saying earlier about the nightclub example. We know that there are other restraints on things like that. We question why, in a lease, someone would be able to open a nightclub in a cul-de-sac in Dickson having regard to land use policies, noise regulations and all those sort of things.
This concept adds an additional layer and gives someone a discretion, which we think adds to and is an inherent part of the uncertainty. It is well and good to have legislation that is clear and that prevents or allows certain things to occur, but it is another thing to have a fairly broad discretion in relation to land use. I think that is where we part company with the government, and it now appears also with the Greens.
Going back to the minister’s comments, very little has been said about the necessity for change. My colleagues Mrs Dunne and Mr Smyth made the point that the government simply has not made out an efficiency case. We have not heard a compelling reason for going down this path even though we have heard significant arguments against it. We were given broad reasons that this is more efficient and that it will prevent undesirable uses when there are plenty of ways of doing that without going down this path.
This goes to the broader issue of leasing and the leasehold system in the territory. We could have a broad debate. Witnesses who appeared before our committee argued that we no longer needed leasehold. We have the territory plan and all the zones that are in that plan, so why have leasehold? That is a debate the community cannot have because of other restraints. The Labor Party is somewhat schizophrenic in this area and champions the virtues of the leasehold system. Mr Speaker, you would well know that when we suggested moving it from 99-year leases to 199-year leases the Labor Party vehemently opposed such a change.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .