Page 236 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Instead of seeing this charge as a great burden, we should see it as an additional lever that can be used to ensure that property development gives a return to the community and is done in a manner that is consistent with our planning objectives. Primarily, that is about making Canberra a more sustainable city so that we can face the challenges of the 21st century. Development should not be imposing future costs on the community through low quality buildings or poor development sites that are then difficult to service. Instead, development should be helping us to respond to the challenges we face, and that will inevitably impose enormous costs on the community if we do not plan for and implement measures to address these challenges.
It was for this reason that the Greens created the mechanisms to ensure that we build in a coordinated approach to these planning challenges and set up a financial incentive for developers to do so. I am referring, of course, to the lease variation charge remission instruments that we ensured went in at the time that this scheme was introduced.
It means that the benefits of this do not stop with the developers. These incentives have the capacity to significantly help our construction industry and create demand for new green skills that will ensure the ongoing sustainability of that industry, help protect jobs and give workers new skills that will give them a competitive advantage. It will help other associated industries such as those involved in the manufacture and design of energy efficiency products and systems. It will help our public transport system and reduce costs on future governments and future Canberrans.
Given the extent of the debate we have had previously on this issue, I do not think I need to go on at great length, as the Greens’ position on this is clear. I will just turn to the last part of the amendment that, I just explained, is about the lease variation charge remission instruments. Ideally we would have these instruments in place now. These instruments were, as the name suggests, about remissions that could be sought for the LVC. There were remissions that could be sought for heritage; that would be around protecting a particular heritage aspect on the site of your development. There were instruments that related to location, so particular areas could be prescribed zones, if you like, where there would be a greater density of housing—this is about building a denser city—but it could attract remissions. Sustainability was another. This could be about a building being more efficient, for instance, having some particular thing about the building or the site that would attract remissions.
There was also one around community facilities. In fact, these are already in place. It is in relation to childcare, GPs and community housing. If there is some way you are including that in a development or there is some relevant aspect to the development, you can apply for a remission for your LVC.
The only thing here has been that with some of the ones that I first mentioned, it is complex. It is a complex area of work. I know that the government has been working to get these instruments ready, but we have been concerned about the delay and the time that it is taking. That is why my amendment refers to a date for those instruments to be put in place. We really want those instruments sooner, because it ensures that we are going to provide the property sector with some certainty around those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video