Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4444 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

If that is combined with increases in interest rates-we have already seen half a per cent, and it is not usually the norm for the Reserve Bank to put up interest rates by a half a per cent as it usually does it a quarter at a time, and there is every indication that interest rates will increase again within the foreseeable future, possibly by another a half a per cent-it is going to have a significant impact on the housing market in itself. The simple answers about land supply and about the provision of the land are not always the absolute desirable answers in the longer term. Nothing is never that easy.

Since coming to government, the Stanhope government, through the agency of Mr Corbell, has progressively reformed the delivery of planning in the ACT. It has established new administrative arrangements that have streamlined some of the processes and it is providing strategic planning and a policy platform for sound decision making. A point that has been made to me is that, when the land act was introduced in 1991, there were over 150 amendments to the bill made on the floor of this Assembly. In conjunction with subsequent amendments, they have created an overly complex and unorthodox planning system.

What we have to recognise is that, when we have a government such as we have and a parliamentary process that permits a minority government, we have people who have interest and influence who can actually change the act. We have had many non-government changes to the act.

MS TUCKER (4.47): I will make a brief general comment that, after listening to this debate, I would give credit to the government for some of its initiatives. I support what it has done. Obviously, working with DV 200 and producing a sustainable map for increasing density around facilities and public transport, and for public land development, is a positive step. However, I echo the concerns of other members in this place today who have said that this government's understanding of how to work with the community is seriously flawed, and that there is a loss of confidence on the part of the community.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the discussion has now expired.

Public housing asset management strategy 2003-2008

Debate resumed.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (4.49), in reply: In closing the debate on the strategy I tabled some time ago, I thank both members who contributed to the debate for their contributions. Mrs Burke asked quite a few questions. I will try to deal with all the ones that I have noted.

Community housing began with a great thrust under the former government and I was happy with that. They were going to transfer a very large number of properties, but that fell into a hole for various logical, sensible reasons. Today, I announced how Community Housing Canberra will be restructured. Rather than being the recipient of a massive transfer of government properties, it will be getting title to properties, which is very important for it, and it will work in an entrepreneurial way in many respects as well as in property management.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .