Page 3335 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
unique position in relation to our land lease system. We are also a territory that is landlocked, both by borders and due to our reserve system that sees important environment conservation areas protected from future development.
Planning for the growth of our evolving city is vitally important. As I have commented before, we need to ensure that, in our consideration of the various crises we find ourselves facing, climate extinction and the housing affordability crisis are considered together. Key policy considerations, such as a commitment to the 70-30 split around greenfield and infill development, are one way that we can see this occurring in real time. This is not about a cruel government denying people a freestanding home; it is actually about creating new opportunities that reflect our modern living, protect our current biodiversity and futureproof our city in the context of a changing climate.
The Indicative Land Release Program is a useful document. It aims to provide visibility and accountability to the community on the work that is being undertaken by government to plan a pipeline of future land release. A particular element that I find valuable is the inclusion of affordable housing targets that outline the specifics of public housing, community housing and affordable housing purchase opportunities. The ILRP is the culmination of extensive work undertaken by the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate and other agencies. It is not a simple recipe, and it is dependent on a range of inputs—some that can change quickly and others that evolve over time. It is an indicative program and it does change. There are elements of the program that do become subject to further work and discussion. Sometimes elements are subject to review by ACAT, for instance.
I look forward to further engaging with the recommendations of the PAC inquiry and reflecting on some perspectives on the issue of how the ILRP is put together and engaged with. There are discussions to be had. For example, in relation to the housing targets, I am interested in how we reflect on the new work that is occurring around models such as build to rent, as a mechanism to provide more affordable rental products, and whether or not they should be connected to the ILRP housing targets or a complementary element to the ILRP targets.
While affordable purchase is important, the discussion of how we support lower income renters is one that is becoming increasingly vital to have. It is useful for us to reflect on how mechanisms such as the ILRP housing targets align with work that is happening in other areas, including implementing the parliamentary and governing agreement. Given all of this, I commend the amended motion to the Assembly.
MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (3.49): It is pretty clear that the Canberra Liberals have today called on the ACT government to implement a number of improvements to the Indicative Land Release Program and land release policy. I thank Ms Lee and Mr Parton for bringing this matter to the Assembly’s attention. I wholeheartedly support this motion and reject Minister Berry’s amendment. I believe that this motion will inject some common sense and integrity into land release approaches.
As has become abundantly clear, reinforced by the community and key industry stakeholders, this Labor-Greens government’s Indicative Land Release Program has had a crippling effect on Canberra’s housing market, driving up prices. Why has this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video