Page 1583 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was a time when, after surveying the maps and going out on site to see what was there, the ordinary ACT citizen went along to the Albert Hall and bid for a block of land; by so doing, they had a commitment and an attachment to that block of land. That system does not apply now. Nowadays, most houses - I am not sure of the percentage, but it is the great majority - are spec built. You go out there and the house is on the land for you, so you are not involved in the design. When you buy a house you are not involved with how that house looks. I think it has got away from us, and it has resulted in quite poor building design.
That is one of the factors that have induced the Government to revert, over a period, to the system whereby the Government manages the land development program or a substantial part of it. We want people to have the opportunity again to bid for their blocks of land, as much as we want the small builders also to have the opportunity to bid for land on which they can put houses. I think the spec building industry in Canberra has very badly affected the quality of homes.
Along with Mr Connolly and the HIA as they endeavour to convince builders to follow certain standards, I am using this opportunity to try to get the message to builders in Canberra that they must change their ways; there are better ways of doing it; there are better ways for energy conservation; there are better designs for home buyers and the quality of their living. It is important that things change, and I will keep pressuring the building industry to see that they do.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.53): I do not intend to speak at length on this subject, but there are some comments that I would like to make in connection with it. The first is that, until the third speaker got up to address this question, I thought Mr Stevenson had put a wrong title on it. Up to that point I would have more properly described it as the government administration of building standards, which is a long way from what is on the daily program - the need to support a productive and viable building industry.
Fortunately, Mr De Domenico and now the Minister have brought the debate around to what I thought it really was about. There is no doubt that compliance with building standards and the administration of them is very important, but it is by no means the totality of the building industry. Mr De Domenico and the Minister have broadened the debate somewhat, and I think it could be broadened even a bit further.
On the question of supporting a productive and viable building industry, Madam Speaker, I think the clear intention is that the Government should support it. I do not know who else would, because buyers support it by the simple act of buying a house in which to live. So, the question is: Where should this support come from? From the debate, I think what Mr Stevenson meant and what other people have interpreted this to mean is: What should the Government be doing to make sure that we maintain a productive and viable building industry?
In that connection, I am rather interested that people spring up and justify themselves by quoting statistics. I was very interested that Mr Connolly got to his feet and started quoting approvals for residences. He quoted figures for the last two fiscal years. I would submit that those statistics are totally irrelevant. What I would like the Minister to have done is to produce the statistics of residences
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .