WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background to this
Bill
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Appendix
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Australian Capital Territory (Planning
and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1999
Date Introduced: 17 February 1999
House: Senate
Portfolio: Regional Services, Territories and Local
Government
Commencement: On Royal Assent
To extend the
maximum term of a lease in the Australian Capital Territory from 99
years to 999 years.
This Bill is the same as the Australian Capital
Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 which
was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 December 1997
and passed without amendment on 10 March 1998. It was introduced
into the Senate on 12 March 1998 and referred to the Senate Rural
and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The
Committee received 29 submissions and held public hearings on 23
and 25 March 1998. The Committee's report was presented in April
1998. A majority of Committee members concluded that the Bill was
an appropriate form of enabling legislation allowing the ACT
Legislative Assembly to enact a change of leasehold term from a
maximum possible term of 99 years to 999 years.(1) A minority
report by three members of the Committee recommended that the Bill
be rejected.(2) The Bill was not debated further in the Senate and
it lapsed when the election was called on 31 August 1998.
The principle of Commonwealth ownership of land
in the Australian Capital Territory was given expression in section
125 of the Constitution which states in part that:
The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall
be determined by Parliament and shall be within territory which
shall be granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth and shall be
vested in and belonging to the Commonwealth.
Public leasehold of land in the ACT was provided
by The Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 which
states in section 9 that 'no Crown lands in the Territory shall be
sold or disposed of for any estate of freehold'.
In 1989 the ACT became self-governing. The
Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act
1988 provides for land within the ACT to be 'National' land or
'Territory' land. Section 29 states that the ACT Executive is
responsible for the management of territory land on behalf of the
Commonwealth. Subsection 29(3) provides that the term of an estate
in Territory Land granted on and after self-government (11 May
1989) 'shall not exceed 99 years or such longer period as is
prescribed, but the estate may be renewed'.
Reasons for Leasehold in the ACT
The original reasons for the adoption of a
public leasehold system for the ACT included:
-
- defraying the expenses of establishing the National Capital by
allowing unearned increments in land value to be retained by the
Commonwealth Government;
-
- avoiding speculation in undeveloped land; and
-
- ensuring orderly planned development through lease purpose
clauses.
At the time of Federation, in debates on the
acquisition of land for the Seat of Government, many members of
Parliament were convinced that the only really economical method of
managing land in the Territory was to alienate it under long-term
leases, with periodical reappraisals of rent. Speaking in the House
of Representatives on 22 September 1903, Sir Edmund Barton summed
up what was the prevailing view when he said:
Within the area that is chosen, the Commonwealth
should be the landlord or the proprietor of every square inch of
private land...there will be a progressive settlement which will
tend to swell the revenue derivable from the land within the
federal area, and thus provide a fund, not only for meeting
interest, but also the extinction of debt...a system of leases with
periodical reappraisement, will be about the best manner in which
we can set about the meeting of any expense which we may incur in
connection with this project.(3)
There was also concern in the minds of the
people framing the legislation to establish the new National
Capital about the possibility of land speculation that might
eventuate. Land scandals associated with the grant of lands and
speculative development were especially common in Sydney and
Melbourne in the 19th century and led to heightened concern that
after the long debate about the siting of the National Capital, it
would give rise to unseemly land speculation.(4) The Hon King
O'Malley moved in the House of Representatives on 19 July 1901 that
an area of not less than 1,000 square miles be set aside, 'the
freehold of which shall for ever remain the property of the
Commonwealth'. He argued that:
Every dollar spent by the people of Australia in
the erection of that capital will create an unearned increment in
the property for miles and miles around....The question now is are
the people of Australia prepared to spend thousands and thousands,
yea, millions, and then lose the benefit of the product of their
expenditure?...The unearned increment created by the expenditure of
the people's money belongs to the people, and that the vesting of
the land in fee simple in the people is an inalienable
right.(5)
In addition, the leasing of land was seen as a
way of ensuring orderly development by placing conditions on the
granting of leases. By leasing the land the Commonwealth Government
could provide sites at low capital cost for housing and for public
and community services, as well as for commercial activities.
Leasehold provided a means of planning the city so that it
developed in a predictable fashion.(6)
Types of leasehold in the ACT
There are four categories of lease granted in
the ACT under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991
(ACT) [the Land Act (ACT)]:
-
- Residential leases can be for up to 99 years,
and most are for that period. These may be automatically renewed,
at any time, for a further 99 years without charge. The only
exception to this right is if the ACT or Commonwealth Government
require the land for a public purpose [section 171 of the Land Act
(ACT)]:
-
- Commercial, industrial and community leases
may also be for up to 99 years, though many are for 50 years.
Renewals of these leases are governed by section 172 of the Land
Act (ACT). As with residential leases, an application for renewal
may be made at any time. If the land is not required by the ACT or
Commonwealth Government for a public purpose and if there is no
change to the purpose of the lease, then it may be renewed on
payment of a 'determined fee'. On 7 January 1998 the Chief Minister
of the ACT, Kate Carnell, announced that commercial leases could be
extended for a similar term as the original lease on payment of
$200. A charge of $2,000 is made when a commercial lease is renewed
for an extra term (for example, a 50 year lease renewed for 99
years) provided there are no other changes to the lease.(7)
-
- Rural leases are usually granted for up to 50
years. Unlike residential or non-residential leases the Land Act
(ACT) does not provide any security of tenure by way of lease
renewal for rural leases. The reason for this relates to the
gradual resumption of rural lands for residential development as
more land was required for the building of Canberra.
-
- Special leases may be granted for a charge
that is less than the market value of the lease where the ACT
administration is satisfied that it is desirable and in the public
interest to do so in order to facilitate economic development or
the development of business in the ACT [section 164 of the Land Act
(ACT)]. Sites provided to each church or denomination and
to the Australian National University have been granted as special
leases.
Land rents were charged on residential and
non-residential leases until 1970 when they were abolished and
municipal rates increased. From January 1971 a 'betterment levy'
has been charged when a lessee is granted a change in the lease
purpose.
How ACT leasehold differs from
freehold
Usually (but not always) freehold permits the
owner to use the land for a particular purpose, allowed by
government and planning laws, for an indefinite period. There is no
right to change the use to a different use, unless the latter is a
permissible one under land use controls and permission is granted
after an appropriate assessment. In addition, an owner's lawful use
of land is constrained by a large number of diverse regulations
relating to building, health, and environmental concerns. A land
owner is also required to pay taxes on land, eg. rates and land
tax. For land held in fee simple (that is, an estate in land which
is the most absolute in respect to the rights it confers), minerals
are usually reserved for the Crown.
The ACT leasehold system has evolved since the
1920s to share many of the attributes of freehold. For example,
leases may be transferred with the agreement of the lessor (the ACT
administration). Transfer may be by sale or inheritance. As in a
freehold system, the administration continues to make rules about
the use of its land, controls over building etc, and levying of
rates and taxes. The administration retains the right, as with
freehold tenure, to compulsorily acquire the lease upon payment of
compensation.
One of the principal differences between private
freehold and public leasehold is that the lessor is also the
government and therefore owns all of the use rights in land. By
granting a lease it permits the lessee to use the land for the use
or uses specified in the lease but no more. The lessor retains the
right to use the land for any other purpose. Normally leases are
granted for a terminable period. Until 1 January 1971, the lessor
also had the right to receive rent. In this way increases in value
in land accrued, to some extent, to the lessor.(8)
In summary, the characteristics of the ACT
leasehold system which are distinct from freehold are:
-
- a lease is for a purpose which is specified in the lease
purpose clause;
-
- a lease is for a specified period of time, usually 99
years;
-
- a lease includes covenants and conditions with which the lessee
is required to comply; and
-
- a lease is subject to the payment of land rent or a
premium.
Reviews of ACT leasehold system
The leasehold system in the ACT has been
reviewed thirteen times in the past 25 years. A list of the
thirteen reports is in the Appendix. A number of these reports
discussed the alternative of perpetual leasehold. (9)
The Land Tenures Inquiry (1976)
favoured perpetual leasehold for home owners because of their
concern for security of tenure. However, the Inquiry did not
recommend that commercial uses should have leases of indefinite
duration. It recommended that commercial leases should be for fixed
terms.(10)
The White Report (1983)
rejected perpetual leasehold as unnecessary and unjustified. It saw
the notion as inconsistent with the Commonwealth ownership of land.
Perpetual leasehold had the capacity to weaken the leasehold system
and the effectiveness of the lease purpose clause as a planning
tool.(11)
The Langmore Report (1988) also
rejected leases in perpetuity as being fraught with contractual
difficulties and weakening the Government's control over the use of
land.(12)
The Stein Report (1995)
similarly rejected conversion to a system of leases in perpetuity
(or freehold) because of the primacy of lease purpose clauses in
controlling planning and development in the ACT. Justice Stein of
the NSW Land and Environment Court also argued that conversion to
freehold or perpetual leases would affect the ACT Government's
ability to extract a charge for development rights ('betterment')
on ACT land. He said that:
Since the Government's residual interest in the
land is diminished (by perpetual leasehold), it will be in a weaker
position to exact a betterment charge. The failure of the NSW land
development legislation in the early 1970s was largely a product of
the opposition of private landholders to accepting a development
rights levy within a freehold tenure system. This experience is
indicative of the lessening of political control which likely would
follow conversion to a system of perpetual leasehold in the
ACT.(13)
1998 Senate Inquiry
Most recently the Senate Rural and Regional
Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (the '1998 Senate
Inquiry') examined whether the ACT Legislative Assembly should be
allowed to enact a change to the leasehold term to increase the
maximum possible term from 99 years to 999 years. A majority of
Committee members concluded that the Bill was an appropriate form
of enabling legislation.
Arguments in favour of 999 year
leases
Deterrent to business in Canberra
Proponents of a change to 999 year leases claim
that they would provide more certainty and security for investors
in the ACT. The ACT Government argued in its submission to the 1998
Senate Inquiry that businesses considering investing in Canberra
may find the current leasehold structure or term too
restrictive.(14) In his Second Reading Speech, the Minister for
Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator the
Hon Ian Macdonald, quoted the ACT Chief Minister, Mrs Kate Carnell
in describing the 99 year limit as 'antiquated and unduly
restrictive'. The former ACT Minister for Land, Planning and the
Environment, Mr Gary Humphries, is quoted as telling a meeting of
the ACT Property Council that:
I have been told constantly of overseas
investment opportunities which evaporated when the investors found
they were dealing with leasehold - and a leasehold system which is
not quite like any other...one that does not provide certainty of
lease renewal.(15)
Submissions to the 1998 Senate Inquiry from the
Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Economists, the Australian
Property Council and the Real Estate Institute of the ACT Ltd.
argued that the current term of 99 year leases was too restrictive
to allow for modern commercial and private development, as distinct
from government investment which characterised Canberra's early
development.(16)
Natural progression
Perpetual leasehold would be a natural
progression from the many changes that have occurred to ACT
leasehold, including:
-
- the method of sale of land leases which has changed gradually
from a rental bid to an outright cash premium;
-
- tenant rights in the improvements were introduced in 1938 to
give the lessee some long term equity in the lease;
-
- land rent and consequent re-appraisals were abolished from 1
January 1971.
These changes are largely irrevocable, and the
logical next step would be perpetual leasehold.(17)
A submission from the Australian Property
Council to the 1998 Senate Inquiry saw the proposal to extend the
leasehold term to 999 as a step towards a system of freehold in the
ACT, particularly with regard to commercial leases.(18)
Australian preference for freehold
The Australian public has a general preference,
understanding and appreciation of freehold tenure. Freehold tenure
is predominant throughout Australia, so anything less than
perpetual leasehold would 'severely penalise Canberra
residents'(19). A term leasehold subject to renewal, and possibly
re-appraisal, is 'an extreme restriction on natural rights of
property ownership and family inheritance'.(20) This is also one of
the arguments in the minority report of the Joint Sub-Committee on
the Canberra Leasehold System (The Langmore Report) where four
Coalition members of the sub-committee argued in November 1988
that:
Freehold or perpetual leasehold is consistent
with the very Australian aspiration to enable each Australian to
own a little piece of Australia. There is no reason why residents
of the ACT should be denied that aspiration.(21)
Control of planning and development
The main feature of Canberra's leasehold system
is the control over the land use particularly by individual purpose
clauses and building requirements which facilitates planning.
However, planning in each of Australia's six States is easily
facilitated by the statutory planning systems of State and Local
governments. Canberra could adopt the familiar statutory planning
systems of the rest of Australia. The residual role of the ACT and
Commonwealth Governments would ensure that local as well as
national interests are taken fully into account. (22)
Simplification of administration
The limited leasehold system requires more
administration than is necessary. Perpetual leasehold should
involve less administrative perplexities and workload. It is much
more readily understood by the public.(23)
Arguments against 999 year
leases
Loss of control over land management and
planning
One important aspect of any change to leases
would be the effect on the Government's ability to enforce
compliance with lease terms. Its interest in land would obviously
be less than in the case of a fixed term lease. In terms of
enforcement, it would be in little different position than a local
government authority in the States seeking to enforce development
approvals and statutory planning schemes. Professor Max Neutze has
argued that many of the critics of leasehold assess it in
comparison with an idealised view of what happens under freehold.
'Because the land is owned by the community, leasehold has the
potential to more adequately protect the community interest in the
way a city develops.'(24)
Loss of revenue
The beneficial ownership of land is almost the
only 'resource' of the ACT government from which it can gain
revenue, and increasingly, as the supply of suitable rural land for
conversion to urban uses runs out, the source of revenue will be
from changes to use. Justice Stein argued in his 1995 report that,
if that source is given away, then it is unlikely that the
Commonwealth Grants Commission would recommend that the ACT be
compensated. He argued that:
In negotiating self government for the ACT, the
Commonwealth was mindful of the fact that the new government would
have limited opportunities to locally raise revenue. In managing
the Territory land on behalf of the Commonwealth, the ACT was given
the income stream from the administration of leases as a
significant source of income...The Commonwealth could not take
lightly a self denying ordinance by the ACT Government to secure an
appropriate return on a national asset such as Territory
land.(25)
In addition, he suggested that the leasehold
system has brought the following financial benefits to Canberra
residents:
-
- lower price of land for housing;
-
- lower cost land for public use;
-
- lower cost land for community use; and
-
- financial return for the government.(26)
The 1998 Senate Inquiry heard that the
Commonwealth may be required to pay out large amounts in
compensation to the holders of 999 year leases, should the
Government decide to resume some land for Commonwealth
purposes.(27) In their minority report the dissenting Senators(28)
expressed the view that 'as the Commonwealth purchased land to
establish the Australian Capital Territory at taxpayers' expense it
is not reasonable to allow the ACT Government to, in effect, give
this land over to private interest with no financial benefit for
the Commonwealth tax payer or the ACT community'.(29)
ACT is a national heritage
The Langmore Report (1988) stated that 'Canberra
land is a national heritage to be safeguarded and used for the
benefit of the nation and its capital'.(30) Leasehold tenure
ensures that ownership of the land remains in the public domain for
the benefit of all Australians.
ACT residents already have secure tenure
Canberra residents have a secure tenure with
residential leases renewed automatically and without cost.
According to the Stein Report, if renewal of commercial leases was
made virtually automatic, subject to the requirement of section 172
to the Land Act (ACT), and long term rural leases were given the
right of renewal, 'then the vast majority of leaseholders will have
adequate security of tenure'.(31)
No evidence that leasehold is a disincentive to
business
The Stein Report said that there is no evidence
that leasehold tenure inhibits investment in the ACT.
Unfortunately no one was able to give the Board
any details of any investment which did not take place in the
Territory as a sole consequence of the leasehold system. In the
result we have been left with a small number of admittedly
anecdotal stories which are impossible to verify, despite a number
of attempts. Those examples able to be scrutinised by the Board
revealed a variety of complex reasons behind a decision not to
invest.(32)
Professor Patrick Troy, head of the Urban
Research Program at the Australian National University, is quoted
as saying that it is 'nonsense' to suggest that the leasehold
system affected investment. 'Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and
Singapore were among the "thriving and bubbling" cities which
operated with leasehold systems'.(33) Professor Max Neutze has
written that:
It is true that investors will pay somewhat less
for leasehold than for freehold land because they are buying lesser
rights, but that does not reduce the rate of return on their
investments. The strongest proponents of conversion to freehold are
those who purchased leases and want to be given the
additional rights that attach to freehold tenure. Once everyone has
freehold tenure, the rate of return from investment in the ACT
would be expected to be about the same as elsewhere in
Australia(34).
Section 164 of the Land Act (ACT)
enables the Government to grant special leases at less than the
market value in order to facilitate economic development or the
development of business in the ACT. The Stein Report recommended
that the ACT Government provide special leases where it is
'satisfied that it is desirable and in the public interest to do
so'.(35)
Evidence to the 1998 Senate Inquiry suggested
that a change to 999 year leases may in fact cause a reduction in
investment and development in the ACT. 'This would be caused by
land values artificially increasing as a result of the changed
lease period and hence increasing the costs to new businesses
establishing in Canberra.'(36)
Summary
In the various reports on changes to the ACT
leasehold system, those in favour of abolition of the leasehold
system are presented mainly as developers and as the owners of
leases which had potential for redevelopment. Those in favour of
maintaining the leasehold system are presented as representatives
of residents and community groups. According to Professor Neutze, a
useful way of describing the situation in Canberra is that leases
have been increasingly treated by many lessees and land
administrators as though they were freehold. Some people believe
that this is appropriate and want to legitimise that situation;
others see it as the erosion of the community equity in and control
over land and want to see it reversed.(37)
The Process
If this Bill is passed, then it will still be
necessary for the ACT Legislative Assembly to pass its own
complementary legislation changing the current leasehold system.
The Australian Labor Party and the Greens, which together have
seven of the seventeen seats in the ACT Legislative Assembly have
said that they will oppose such a change. The independent member,
Mr Michael Moore MLA, opposed it in his submission to the 1998
Senate Inquiry, arguing that the changes proposed to the ACT
leasehold system by the Bill would, in the end, 'benefit commercial
leaseholders at the expense of residential leaseholders, and,
because of the special nature of ACT land tenure, the nation'.(38)
The Liberal Party has six seats in the ACT Legislative Assembly and
would need to gain the support of the remaining three members (two
independents and one from the United Canberra Party) in order to
make the change.
This Bill contains only two items.
The effect of Item 1 of Schedule
1 is to enable leases in the ACT to be granted for 999
years and to remove the provision for prescribing longer periods.
Item 2 states that the change from 99 to 999 year
leases will apply to estates granted on or after this Act receives
Royal Assent. Automatic renewal would not be possible under the
proposed legislative change. Business and other lessees wishing to
obtain a lease longer than 99 years would have to surrender their
old lease and apply for a new one under the new limit of 999
years.
-
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, Report on the consideration of a Bill referred to the
Committee: Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land
Management) Amendment Bill 1997, April 1998, p. [17].
- Ibid., Minority report, p. 8.
- House of Representatives, Debates, 22 September 1903, p.
5278-5281.
- Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold System, Report on
the Canberra leasehold system, (Chair: J.V. Langmore), AGPS,
Canberra, 1988, p. 5.
- House of Representatives, Debates, 19 July 1901, p. 2807-2809.
- Ibid., p. 7.
- 'Automatic renewal of commercial leases now possible', Kate
Carnell MLA, Chief Minister Australian Capital Territory, Media
release, 7 January 1998.
- ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of Leasehold,
Report into the administration of the ACT leasehold, November 1995
(Chair: P. Stein), Publications and Public Communication, Canberra,
1995, p. 20-23.
- Strictly speaking, a 999 year lease is not the same as a
perpetual lease. A perpetual lease is a type of Crown land tenure
held in perpetuity subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. A
perpetual lease may be converted to a freehold estate by payment of
a purchase price, depending on the terms and conditions of the
particular lease. (Butterworths Australian legal dictionary,
Sydney, 1997, p. 870.)
- Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures, Final report, February
1976 (Chair: R. Else-Mitchell), AGPS, Canberra, 1976.
- Committee of Review of the National Capital Development
Commission, Canberra planning and development: report of the
Committee of review of the role and functions of the NCDC, July
1983 (Chair: G.M. White), AGPS, Canberra, 1983.
- Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold System, Report on
the Canberra leasehold system, (Chair: J.V. Langmore), AGPS,
Canberra, 1988.
- ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of Leasehold,
Report into the administration of the ACT leasehold, November 1995
(Chair: P. Stein), Publications and Public Communication, Canberra,
1995, p. 117.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p. 8.
- 'Coming soon: 999-year leases for land in ACT', Canberra Times,
10 July 1997, p. 1-2.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p. 9.
- B.V. Raison, 'Perpetual leasehold tenure sought for the ACT',
The Valuer, June 1988, p. 32.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p. 9.
- B.V. Raison, 'Proposal for perpetual leasehold in the
Australian Capital Territory', The Valuer, October 1979, p. 643.
- Ibid., p. 643.
- Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold System, op. cit.,
p. 76.
- Ibid., p. 74.
- Raison, 'Proposal for perpetual leasehold...' op.cit., p. 646;
Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold System, op.cit., p.
76.
- M. Neutze, 'The Stein Report on leasehold administration in the
Australian Capital Territory: some observations on land tenure and
systems in other States', Local Government Law Journal, 1(4), May
1996, p. 215.
- ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of Leasehold, op.
cit., p. 113.
- Ibid., p. 124-125.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p.10.
- Senators Kate Lundy, Kerry O'Brien and Lyn Allison signed the
Minority report.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p. 7.
- Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold System, op. cit.,
p. 8.
- ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of Leasehold, op.
cit., p. 116.
- Ibid., p. 113.
- Canberra Times, 11 July 1997, p. 2, 'Plan for 999-year leases
an election stunt: academic'.
- Neutze, op. cit., p. 212.
- ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of Leasehold, op.
cit., p. 114.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., Minority report, p. 7.
- Neutze, op. cit., p. 212.
- Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee, op. cit., p. 11.
List of Reports on the ACT Leasehold
System 1973-1998
Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures,
First report, November 1973 (Chair: R. Else-Mitchell),
Govt. Printer, Canberra, 1975.
Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenures,
Final report, February 1976 (Chair: R. Else-Mitchell),
AGPS, Canberra, 1976.
Joint Committee on the Australian Capital
Territory, Planning in the ACT: procedures, processes and
community involvement, March 1979 (Chair: J.W. Knight), AGPS,
Canberra, 1979.
Committee of Review of the National Capital
Development Commission, Canberra planning and development:
report of the Committee of review of the role and functions of the
NCDC, July 1983 (Chair: G.M. White), AGPS, Canberra, 1983.
Joint Sub-Committee on the Canberra Leasehold
System, Report on the Canberra leasehold system, (Chair:
J.V.Langmore), AGPS, Canberra, 1988.
J. Mant, A further report on the planning
system for the ACT, 1989.
ACT Priorities Review Board, Priorities for
improved public sector management, Canberra, 1990.
Access Economics, An economic assessment of
the betterment issues in the ACT, 1992.
R.K.Todd, Report of inquiry into planning
and development proposals, Section 22 - Braddon, ACT
Government, Canberra, 1993.
R.B. Lansdown, Australian Capital Territory
residential redevelopment review: report to the Minister for the
Environment, Land & Planning (ACT), Canberra, 1994.
ACT Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on
Planning, Development and Infrastructure, Inquiry into possible
changes to planning legislation in the ACT, Canberra,
1994.
ACT Department of the Environment, Land and
Planning, Draft process review report, December 1994.
ACT Board of Inquiry into the Administration of
Leasehold, Report into the administration of the ACT
leasehold, November 1995 (Chair: P. Stein), Publications and
Public Communication, Canberra, 1995.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Legislation Committee, Report on the consideration of a Bill
referred to the Committee: Australian Capital Territory (Planning
and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997, April 1998 (Chair:
Sen W. Crane), Canberra, 1998.
Rosemary Bell
19 March 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1999.
Back to top