Page 3470 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (9.11): I want to briefly respond to some of what Ms Le Couteur was saying. The Greens’ view of the world in Throsby is a very concerning one, and one that we have raised concerns about. Sometimes the government does get sucked in by the Greens on some of these issues. The reality is that Throsby has been set aside for residential development for a long time. As a result, like many suburbs in Canberra, or like many areas in Canberra that have been set aside, there will be from time to time some more ecological value. That is the nature of the way that we have planned Canberra, in fact, because no-one is going to invest money in the rural sector with short-term leases that are likely to be developed at some point in the future that have been set aside. That is one of the reasons we see that.
The Greens’ view of the world is “if you plan properly and set aside these suburbs, the ecological values will be there and you cannot develop them”. It is a catch 22. If the Greens had had any influence when Canberra was being developed, none of it would have been developed. Virtually none of it would have been developed, because we can always find some environmental impact. There is always some environmental impact when we develop houses—when we develop anything.
Our role as legislators and as leaders is to make sure we just get a reasonable balance, as we have done in Canberra. I do not think anyone would look at the development of Canberra and reasonably say—and this goes back many decades, pre self-government and post self-government—that the environment has not been given due regard or that we have not kept green space, not just for residents to enjoy but also for native flora and fauna to thrive.
I think that we get that balance right. Ms Le Couteur’s view of the world and the Greens’ view of the world, that we wipe out whole suburbs such as Throsby, is counterproductive and would mean that we could virtually develop nothing. We just need to be sensible about these things at a time when we do need more housing. Even if there is a slowdown in the next year or two and we see less demand in that time, the next boom is just around the corner. The next boom is just around the corner, and we need to be ready for that. We need to be able to respond to that in a really timely way lest we see further impacts on affordability in the future the next time that we see a real upswing in demand.
I would like to move to the government’s performance when it comes to land release in this area as we discuss that.
Mrs Dunne: Woeful.
MR SESELJA: It is woeful. We asked some questions of the Minister for Economic Development on this. The answers are pretty concerning. If you wonder why there is a housing affordability crisis, you only have to look at some of these numbers. “How many residential blocks expected to be released in 2011-12 have actually been released?” we asked. The answer was this: “Of the 3,015 dwelling sites scheduled for release”—that is actually not true—“(revised down from 5,500 at mid-year review), 2,466 dwelling sites were actually released.” So 5,500 were meant to be released; that was revised down to 3,015; and the actual was 2,466.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video