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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3827 ..

Development Agency, I said that both the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority and the Gungahlin Development Authority are required to exercise their functions consistent with the social and economic needs of the territory; in accordance with prudent commercial principles; in consultation with residents of the ACT; in a socially responsible way, having regard to the community; and in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, which is defined.

I was pleased to see that Minister Corbell’s budget press release regarding land development reform said that the new Land Development Agency would exercise its functions on the same principles. The idea that I understood the government had with the Land Development Agency was exactly this issue; it was about getting more involved in what we are doing in the built environment in the ACT in terms of the environment and social objectives. And we have an opportunity to have a partnership to actually achieve those objectives. But of course, what we have seen instead is, on the whole, very mediocre development or totally handing back to the private sector and just reneging on any of those commitments that were made when we had the debate in the Assembly in June 2003.

Canberra West has been spoken about by a number of speakers, in that there is a 5 per cent commitment. There is a really important point that always has to come up in the debate about affordable housing, which is: are we talking about, for example, initiatives such as the grants to first home buyers? Of course, that is a useful thing, although it has caused speculation and an increase in house prices.

I was interested in Mr Wood’s statement that it was a problem with my legislation. In fact, I think it is a lot less of a problem than the grants to first home owners, which has certainly been shown to be a factor in the housing boom. But the other thing, of course, that is a problem with those kinds of initiatives is that they are not providing permanent affordable housing. In a way, it is a windfall gain for the people who benefit from that concession or subsidy for purchasing their first home. So the question of affordability and affordable housing has to be framed in terms of permanent affordability or not. That is another layer of the debate that has been totally missed in this conversation today as well.

The Treasurer also said that the objectives in the Canberra spatial plan are there and it is an important area, and they are working on it. Mr Wood said that too. Well, I am sorry, I do not think you have worked on it. You have produced documents but we have not seen any results. I think we have seen, over the years, an increase of 10 more public houses in the stock or whatever it is, and we are seeing an increasing crisis in housing affordability in the ACT and very little improvement to the overall position for people on low incomes in the ACT.

Mrs Dunne once again referred to laudable sentiments and so on. She made the point that it has to be a case-by-case basis, once again referring to the blunt instrument argument. That is what other members have said. As I said, our legislation absolutely allows for a case-by-case basis in terms of how this social obligation is delivered. I have already pointed that out.

Mrs Dunne also said she was concerned that you would end up with A-class and B-class units. That already happens to a degree. If she has talked to anyone in public housing in

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