Page 1995 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
new building work, then a development approval under the current Land (Planning and Environment) Act is required.
The ACT Planning and Land Authority does not gain any additional powers to vary leases. As I indicated through a recent amendment, if the territory plan purports to prohibit a lease authorised use, then a development approval can still be granted for such a use under the impact track. Also, use approval may not be required at all if building work is not involved and the section 132A exemption applies.
On the issue of financiers and valuers, the government believes that the new provisions will assist financiers and valuers in ways to value and assess crown leases by introducing mechanisms through an amendment of the Land Titles Act for use approvals to be noted on the lease at the Land Titles Office. All relevant information can be obtained from that office. It will set up clear parameters as to how use is assessed and how the territory plan applies to use, instead of what can be described as the current approach, which would be best described as “muddling through”.
It is not correct to suggest that lease provisions are 100 per cent determinative of the value of the land. Under current legislation new development proposals must still be subject to development assessment, including use impacts, and this can affect land values. Other legislation, like the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, can also affect land values.
Without wanting to relive Tuesday’s debate, I understand the position that is put by the “group of nine” and supported by the opposition here today. But, again, the government has to strike an appropriate balance in this legislation. We have responded to concerns that were raised, particularly by the law society, through this process and the series of amendments that I have moved. I am pleased to see that there was acknowledgement from the industry groups and from the opposition. It was, for once, accurately reported in the Canberra Times this morning that the government has responded to those concerns. And, yes, I acknowledge that we have not met and resolved all of the concerns that have been put forward by the “group of nine”, but I do not think it was ever possible to achieve everything that those organisations wanted whilst also maintaining appropriate balance and protection for the community in this legislation.
Again, the government has achieved a balanced position overall, as I have observed on this legislation. We have been criticised by the Greens in some aspects for being too pro-development and then criticised by the opposition for making it difficult for developers. That would seem to me to indicate that we have struck an appropriate balance here and that the sensible middle path has been progressed with this legislation. The government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendments.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (5.52): I seek leave to just quickly respond, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: You will need leave.
Mr Barr: Yes. I would not want to be accused of not letting him say his piece.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .