Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

REAL PROPERTY (UNIT TITLES) AMENDMENT BILL 1999

Bills presented and read a first time.

Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.

The purpose of these bills is to amend the Real Property Act, Real Property (Unit Titles) Act and the Unit Titles Act. These amendments bring forward the policy of proposed reforms to the laws of property provided in the Land Titles Bill 1998 and Law of Property Bill 1998. These bills were tabled for comment in this Assembly in its last sittings.

The more general reforms proposed in these bills will be brought forward once there has been an opportunity for all interested persons and bodies within the wider community to have considered the reforms and commented upon them. However, a more urgent need to amend the current legislation in certain respects has emerged. There is a need to bring forward reforms dealing with the requirement for developers to obtain the consent of registered proprietors of interests in the land to subdivision or unit developments.

There have been some instances recently where owners of land seeking to subdivide or develop units on their land have encountered major obstacles in seeking to comply with the requirements of the existing legislation. The problems have arisen because owners of land are required to obtain the consent of registered proprietors of interest in the land for subdivision or unit developments, whether or not those interests would in fact be affected by the proposal. In one particular case, for example, the interest held was an access and water easement that was not to be affected at all by the proposed subdivision. Under the existing legislation, the persons holding those interests in land, although unaffected by the proposal, can effectively interfere with an owner’s reasonable use of his or her land by refusing to provide consent. Even if that interest is only very minor and not affected at all by the development, such refusal operates as an apparent right of veto over the proposed subdivision or unit development. I am sure that any owner of land would agree that in such a case, in the absence of formal mechanisms for a failure to present consent to be dealt with, the situation is unacceptable.

The proposed reforms to the Real Property Act, Real Property (Unit Titles) Act and the Unit Titles Act take a balanced approach to the issue. Legitimate rights of registered proprietors of interests in the land continue to be protected. However, as a result of the amendments it will now only be necessary for the owner of the land to obtain consent to subdivision or unit developments from those persons whose interests in the land are actually affected by the subdivision or unit development.

In addition, the Real Property Act is to be amended to provide for application to be made in the Supreme Court for modification or extinguishment of an easement or restrictive covenant. There are many circumstances in which over time changes in the use or enjoyment of land will render and an easement or restricted covenant unsuitable, inappropriate or obsolete. This amendment will enable the court to make an order in limited circumstances modifying or extinguishing the easement or restrictive covenant. Where such an order is sought because the continued existence of the easement or restrictive covenant would impede the applicant’s reasonable use of the land, the court must be satisfied that monetary compensation will adequately compensate for the modification or extinguishment.

These amendments reflect policies in the Law of Property Bill 1998, which was developed after extensive inquiry and consideration by the property law subcommittee of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, and the Land Titles Bill 1998. They provide a sensible and balanced reform in this area. I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]