Page 1438 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the CRA and not the SLA? And there are few expectations on the SLA, despite the agency having broader scope and power.
Alternatively, is the government anticipating that the CRA has the potential to be more corrupt and therefore it needs tighter measures? Or is it a purposeful choice to include fewer accountability measures for the SLA so that the government has plausible deniability? Why is there less scrutiny over the land management of the greater territory area compared to Northbourne Avenue, the city and the lakefront?
The division of the functions between the two entities under this bill is also questionable. The creation of two separate agencies to do the work that was being done by one body I think is very problematic. The CRA’s primary and narrow focus is urban renewal in declared urban renewal precincts. However, the bill provides the Suburban Land Agency, in practice, with the exact same urban renewal powers across other parts of the territory. Why, then, do we need a separate City Renewal Authority?
Why are the board members and CEO of the City Renewal Authority being paid more than those in the Suburban Land Agency, where the board members and the CEO of the agency have additional responsibilities? Why is the government placing greater emphasis on the development of Northbourne Avenue instead of addressing the real problems of housing affordability and land release facing our suburbs? Is this another example of the government focusing its attention on the city at the expense of our suburban areas? Unfortunately, this simply exemplifies once again that the government’s priority is the inner city, at the expense of suburbia.
The bill is poorly conceived and the Labor Party is already, of course, putting forward amendments. This demonstrates that the Labor government have not adequately thought through what they are proposing. Despite the fact that this was announced before the election, it took until late March of 2017 for the government to actually present this legislation. Then for it to come on on the first sitting day following that presentation I think shows that this is a rushed job.
The Canberra Liberals will be opposing the bill. The Land Development Agency was shown to be flawed time and again. We have yet to see an outline of the frameworks and processes that will govern these two new entities. In reality, the government’s framework, as stipulated in the legislation for the LDA, is pretty much the same legislative governance arrangements that will exist for these two agencies. I have no confidence, no confidence whatsoever, that anything will actually change.
The opposition has seen the implications of poor processes in the various LDA inquiries and reports. We have seen the cost financially and the loss of public confidence when governance, accountability and transparently are not built into the legislative framework. As we have consistently said, the Canberra Liberals support transparency and accountability and, above all, integrity in government decision-making. This bill in its present form and the City Renewal Authority and the Suburban Land Agency do not encompass those values. Therefore, the Canberra Liberals will be opposing the bill today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video