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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3829 ..

The Democrats say that there is an impact on the housing market and a distortion. I have already pointed out that that does not have to happen at all—we have got a very flexible model here—and that many of the developers I have spoken to are quite interested in it if there is that potential for the conversation to occur and flexibility about how it happens and, of course, if there are discussions about betterment and so on.

You actually need to work to achieve the objective with the private sector together. Many people in the private sector are not against this because they have an interest in taking social responsibility. They are not all totally profit driven to the degree that people are claiming here today.

The notion was that somehow—this was a Democrat argument as well—we will have greenfields development. It has also come up with other speakers. I find that a really strange argument. We actually have, in the territory, a strong planning system now, which I supported, which has increased density around facilities, public transport, something called core areas and a plan.

Mr Hargreaves, I think it was, said, “Oh, no, no, this will not work because it will just happen anywhere where there are developments; they only get high-density developments in certain areas.” The notion that you are going to have people doing 19 developments out in the suburbs and the notion that somehow 19 will solve the problem for developers will not happen. How many developments? Look at these unit developments that have occurred more recently. How many of them are around the number 20? Okay, if you are actually going to tell me they are going to go from 70 or 75 units down to 19 so they do not do this, I do not think that is a very practical response or at all likely.

Mrs Cross—I think I have answered her, basically. She did not raise many points but the ones she raised I think I have already covered, except that she said at the end, “But I expect the government to do more because this is a good idea.” Mrs Cross, do not expect the government to do more. I have been expecting the government to do more since 1997 when I first started seriously looking at this, when Mr Wood, in opposition, supported a target of 10 per cent in the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority.

The affordable housing task force—I have not invented this idea; as Mr Wood acknowledged, and I think Mrs Cross referred to—did recommend that there be a target, albeit less. Of course I would have been happy to accept an amendment to reduce this 10 per cent to 5 per cent in this debate if that was the issue for people, but no-one was interested in doing that, obviously.

In Sydney, inclusionary zoning requirements are now up to 4 per cent. This is a quote from the affordable housing task force:

… the market appears to be able to absorb that level without major concerns. For the ACT, a starting figure of 3 per cent seems reasonable.

I would be happy to accept that amendment if someone wanted to put it—

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