Page 2727 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell: No, that is not what you said.
MR SESELJA: That is what I said. I stand by that. I am not, per se, against cutting staff in ACTPLA. If you do not get productivity gains to match, then we could see the industry suffering. In principle, we should be looking at areas of government where we can do things better. If they are going to do that in ACTPLA, then I welcome and support that. But the minister needs to put up the case—and he did not do it in estimates—as to where the productivity savings are going to come and where the productivity gains will come.
We heard Mr Hargreaves before talking about how I am always negative. I take this opportunity to say that Neil Savery is improving the overall management of ACTPLA, and has done so for the last couple of years. Not all areas of his performance are perfect, but many industry insiders—not all of them—speak highly of him. He has done a pretty reasonable job. So credit where credit is due. There are some improvements in ACTPLA. I welcome that.
I welcome the planning system reform. We are looking very closely at it. The planning and environment committee is currently looking very closely at it. There are some issues that have come to light but the overall package, the overall idea, is a good one. It will take some time. This is a significant piece of legislation. We apparently are going to see it have only one month’s scrutiny in the Assembly. We are getting a little more scrutiny in the P and E committee than we had anticipated or than the government wanted, which is a good thing. I welcome the overall planning system reform. It is long overdue. But we need to see the details. I have spoken about it for some time. Changing the legislation is one thing but the cultural change in ACTPLA is important. The LDA is the other part of that picture. That is perhaps where more significant cultural change is needed.
I need to highlight that in this budget we have seen increases in development application fees. In some cases the fee has doubled, up by about $600. It is part of a general move for costs to be shifted more and more to first homebuyers in particular. We saw that with some of the new guidelines. Some of the water saving measures, where you basically either have to have a water tank or grey water recycling, add a lot to the cost. I know that relatives of mine just purchased their first house and paid $12,000 in stamp duty. There are significant costs there. We have seen the scaling-back of the stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers. We heard the Chief Minister talking the other day in this place about it being a significant issue and it is difficult for first homebuyers. Often when we add to these costs, whether they be in regulations or otherwise, it is first homebuyers who cop it and who have higher mortgages as a result or are kept out of the home market.
I want to say something very quickly about the busway, which we asked some questions about in estimates. Clearly, this is not going to go ahead. We have seen $3 million already spent. We are going to see another $3 million spent. We have heard Mr Hargreaves say not in his lifetime. It is time that we put this one to bed. It has been another area where there has been a waste of money. For a potential spend of $150 million we are looking at a three-minute saving between Civic and Belconnen. It is an obscene waste of money.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .