Page 909 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I drew the attention of members in this place to a building site I had inspected on Allara Street, which will be the new home of the federal Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. It is one of the buildings in Canberra that will lead the way in environmentally sustainable and high-quality design. A number of allowances have been made—from grey water provisions to waterless urinals and other measures—that will put this building at the forefront of the market.
Dr Foskey drew our attention to the building at Brindabella Business Park. She said that, if we took on these mandatory targets, we would be providing the kinds of buildings that businesses will be demanding five years from now. She fails to mention that the decision taken by the builders of Brindabella Business Park to meet the green star targets and to be a leading light in sustainability and design was taken voluntarily. Nobody made them do it—nobody forced them—and no mandatory targets were necessary. Similarly with the DITR building, it is an example of industry leading the way and saying, “We will incorporate these features. We will introduce these measures—not because we have to, but because they are ratings which will make our buildings more attractive to tenants and which will ensure that potential tenants will come to our buildings.” I also note the work that the HIA has done with Greensmart, a voluntary scheme that assists home owners constructing private dwellings to incorporate practical environmental measures in a cost-effective manner and recognises affordability.
In the last debate on this subject, Mr Hargreaves highlighted the fact that we should also be careful to ensure that we do not pre-empt the new features that will be part of the Building Code of Australia, an intergovernmental agreement that will create standards similar to that of the green star initiatives. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with Mr Hargreaves and I cannot imagine how long it will be before I have to agree with him again, but on this point he has some merit.
I will not stand in this place and wave the big stick at industry in the ACT, as Dr Foskey would have us do. I will not dictate to them in unreasonable ways that lead to bad outcomes for the community. There are a number of measures, achievements and programs that industry are voluntarily implementing now that are being well received by builders, building owners and ACT residents who are constructing new homes. These measures are to be commended. I still cannot see an overwhelming case for the importance of mandatory targets.
I just wanted to briefly say a few words on housing affordability, which goes to the heart of this issue. I agree with much of what Mr Corbell had to say on the issue. It is crucially important that we do not go around implementing all sorts of mandatory targets or mandatory measures that lead to home owners, especially first home buyers, being slugged with significant additional costs. While I am in this place I will continue to fight for first home buyers. As Mr Corbell pointed out, home ownership is a crucial indicator of the relative wealth of people in our society. We in the Liberal Party certainly stand for as many people as possible having access to home ownership. The effects of red tape imposed on industry are always passed on to home buyers which leads, in turn, to many people being unable to afford to buy their first home.
This government’s record on land release, even with the establishment of the LDA, has been a little too slow and has led to higher land prices than should have been the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .