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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3830 ..

In larger developments (10 units or more) this would probably facilitate the provision of one dwelling at a discounted price that an affordable housing provider could cover by borrowing against projected rental income.

One of the flexibilities in my bill of course is low rent. You have permanent affordable housing. The owner, the landlord, still has the capacity to get regular rent; they just will not get quite as much. (Extension of time granted.) Of course you can have an affordable housing rent set for units in a particular development. So the capacity for that to be covered is obviously there and that is a flexibility that exists.

To continue quoting from the affordable housing task force:

To meet expected needs for affordable housing in the medium-longer term, the inclusionary zoning requirement would probably need to increase progressively to between 5-10%.

If accompanied by a more broadly-based levy, inclusionary zoning could be limited to larger developments of 10 units or more, where it is likely that affordable dwellings could be provided within a development. This would have the desirable effect of scattering affordable accommodation across the city, and also facilitate the application of offsetting bonuses in a way that is directly linked to provision of affordable dwellings.

Payment of cash contribution in lieu needs to be available as an option.

Et cetera, et cetera. We have not invented this; this was the result of this idea and of a lot of work that was done.

Mr Hargreaves made the point—I think I have already responded to this—about the social problems he thought that were there: a small sector of society is carrying the burden. I have already dealt with how that can be accommodated and compensated for. The stigma, I have already dealt with that. He wants a more global solution with government having a shared responsibility. That is exactly what this legislation allows to occur. He said that if you impose a regime people will not want to comply. Well, we could just get rid of all regulation in that case.

Mr Wood basically accepted the concept. I have made most of the points, I think, to respond to his points.

I think I have responded to all the arguments. In conclusion, I think this is a really disappointing response. I do not think people have really given it serious consideration; they have not actually understood what our legislation is doing; they could have amended this to reduce the target. Basically I hope people in the next Assembly are prepared to take a little bit more initiative and show more courage on this critical social issue.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

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