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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3825 ..

way of doing that so that we would not necessarily impose a higher cost on housing. That is why we did it that way. As we go through City West we need to do it in the same careful way. And I make that point.

Ms Tucker’s proposal goes across every development of 20 or more units. It needs to be done in a different way; it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I think just a blanket description of 10 per cent is wrong. It will have a more detrimental impact as a result. Let’s look at it case by case.

As well, I have examined places in Sydney where this has happened—and I do not claim to have enormous knowledge in this area; it relates in many circumstances, not all in my mind, to areas of very intensive development, with great pressures and very high property values. In those circumstances you can take a stronger line than you can in a place like Canberra where the intensity is much less.

To attack the problem, it needs to be done carefully. Ms Tucker, I am afraid your bill just is not careful enough; it just does not do the task in the way it is supposed to do. We are redoing the issue on the Burnie Court site; we are reforming the way we are doing things; and we will still have, as it goes through, certainly if I am minister, a 5 per cent affordability claim. But it will be done carefully. The way that we can work that in just will not be a bland statement; it will be a careful process. The concept of a target is fine, but the practicality of working it through has to be very carefully done.

If you will allow me a few minutes to boast, I think we have taken steps in this government—long neglected by former governments—to attend to the significant housing issues that we face. Attracting capital is always difficult, and I think we are working through that issue. Housing and Treasury are working through issues here. We were able to attract $33 million, which is a major boost to public housing, one that is long overdue. I will not be in the next parliament. I will be looking for that every year, I have to say. That is the order of what we need to do. But let’s give credit that we have received that to date.

We have also injected $13 million into homelessness. That is a level of funding that has never been available. That is new funding for homelessness, additional funding. Like that $33 million, that is a level of new funding into those areas that has not been done before in the life of this Assembly.

We have also committed 500 affordable blocks of land to be released over the next five years, again, in a very careful way, to help people, while balancing the other factors involved. We have given stamp duty concessions for first home buyers; we have re-instituted the rental bonds scheme for low-income earners; and we have made the public housing system more accessible to people in need. I believe that we have been taking very positive measures in a difficult area where it is not easy to impact on the markets. We have taken sensible steps. Five per cent, with careful process, I think, is sensible; a blanket 10 per cent is not sensible.

Ms Tucker, you and I will not be able to debate these things in this place for much longer, but I would encourage thinking and good action in this area. The debate, I think, has been useful. I can assure you that the Labor government will continue to work assiduously to attend to the problems of the high cost of housing.

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