Page 3668 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
about many people. We are not talking about wealthy people; we are talking about people doing it really tough. I, on their behalf, ask you to reconsider.
I say to Mr Barr: do not move your amendments today. Give it more time, think about it, dwell on it and perhaps consider again your disallowable instrument. While I understand that you have to consider the ACT budget, you should think about why you are here, think about why we are all here, and think about the people that you are affecting as a result of what you are doing here.
MS FITZHARRIS (Molonglo) (5.28): It was one year ago this week that the ACT government initiated the loose-fill asbestos insulation eradication scheme. Since my election to the Assembly past that date I have had the opportunity to get a better understanding of the Mr Fluffy issue, its history and the current policy framework around the buyback scheme, including through this legislation being debated today and the planning committee’s report tabled this morning. It is a complex issue, and one that will change our city and impact on the families involved in a way similar to that of a natural disaster but played out in slow motion.
I know the task force has been working hard to get our response to this issue right, and that this legislation is a step forward. The Building (Loose-fill Asbestos Eradication) Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 proposes a number of amendments to facilitate the implementation of the demolition and resale components of the scheme, as the Chief Minister has previously said. These amendments relate to the Building Act 2004, for the demolition of residential premises, the Building and Construction Industry Training Levy Act 1999 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004.
The amendments will provide a more streamlined process and introduce some efficiencies into the regulatory oversight of the demolition phase of the scheme. The Planning and Development Act 2007 is also being amended to address the demolition of asbestos-affected heritage buildings, so the automatic impact track assessment will not apply. The legislation also amends the Land Rent Act 2008 to make land rent available to former Mr Fluffy home owners who are seeking to return to rebuild on their former block if they meet the land rent eligibility criteria.
The outcomes of the amendments as they relate to the land rent scheme are to: first, make the land rent scheme available to Mr Fluffy home owners at all, as currently it is available only in greenfield sites; second, prevent a land rent lease granted under the first right of refusal from being transferred to another person, and ensure it is a provision that is available only to Mr Fluffy owners; and, third, restrict conversion of the lease to market value.
I am aware that the land rent aspects of this legislation are contentious for some people impacted by Mr Fluffy. Last week I met with a group of home owners to discuss these issues as they relate to the land rent scheme and get a better understanding of how it impacts on them. I am aware also that some people thought that land rent would operate in a different way, allowing them to convert their lease at an average unimproved value. Other people, though, have told me they did not think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video