Page 3109 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
natural environment. That is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve our sustainable development directorate objectives.
When I first became planning minister I outlined a number of priorities. The first was to work harder and move faster on the issue of improving our public transport in the city. Another was to improve the focus on energy efficiency. The third was to focus very strongly on issues around delivery of land in a timely manner to meet the government’s housing affordability objectives. These approaches have been confirmed in the Chief Minister’s statement of priorities which she released in the last week or so.
I want to respond specifically to some of the criticisms of Mr Seselja. Contrary to his assertions, the framework the Labor government first established following the 2001 election remain in place, and they remain in place because they work. The ACT Planning and Land Authority will continue to perform its statutory function as the independent assessor of development proposals in the city and the provider of advice to the government on the strategic land use and planning functions. That is the framework the government put in place in 2001, and that framework remains.
Equally, the establishment of the Land Development Agency was a vehicle to restore public sector land development to the territory and to ensure that the territory’s ownership of land through the leasehold system returned benefit to the territory when that land value was realised for urban development. Again, that objective remains unchanged. The vehicle may change, but the purpose remains the same. That is a strong endorsement of the strong policy framework the government first brought to planning and land development when it was first elected and the strong policy focus it remains for this government today.
I find it curious that Mr Seselja seeks to apportion to me the problems with delays in projects such as the north Weston ponds project, a project for which I was not the minister responsible at the time it was commenced or, indeed, when the project encountered the issues it did. I find that somewhat curious. Nevertheless, I am not surprised.
I want to turn also to the issues around the urban ponds project and address the criticism from Mrs Dunne. Again, I simply make the point there is strong community support for these projects, and the projects deliver as much in terms of cost-benefit and economic return to the territory as they deliver in terms of the return to the territory in environmental and social outcomes. I outlined the reasons for that in question time and during the estimates committee process.
The most pleasing thing for me in this budget is the direct assistance the directorate will be providing to low income households to assist with the rising costs of utility services in the territory. There is $4.4 million over the next four years to reach out to 4,000 low income Canberra households to assist them directly with reducing their energy costs. We know what we can achieve from this program because we have trialled it over the previous 12 months and it has been an overwhelming success. The average saving per household was $120 per annum in reduced electricity costs because of the measures delivered through the trial outreach program. We anticipate a higher return as we roll out this program to 4,000 Canberra households.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video