Page 3323 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 October 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Within that, part of that new body of work is a dedicated mentorship program for aspiring senior executives from CALD backgrounds. As we identified yesterday, there is work that has been identified that does need to be done to ensure that we have that strong representation across all levels of the public service.


MS CHEYNE: In relation to the first supplementary today, I was asked about ChooseCBR and how many non-employing businesses participated in that. Data was not captured as part of ChooseCBR because it was not part of the eligibility criteria. I do have the data on how many non-employing businesses participated or received business support grants, but, regrettably, my PDF keeps corrupting, so I will provide that tomorrow.

Suburban Land Agency—sales

MS BERRY: In response to the questions I was asked yesterday on the Indicative Land Release Program, for the five years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 the SLA-delivered Indicative Land Release Program identified residential releases totalling 16,999 dwellings. This excludes releases by the City Renewal Authority and Ginninderry joint venture, as well as direct sales by EPSDD. The SLA released 16,630 dwellings, a variance of just 369 dwellings, or 2.2 per cent.

It is important to acknowledge that the Indicative Land Release Program is indicative, by definition. It is the government’s forecast of expected land releases in the financial year and, therefore, refinement and adjustment of those release numbers may occur during the year. Land releases are a complex process. They can be impacted by a range of issues, which I talked about yesterday, including planning and environmental process outcomes, due diligence processes, community engagement and consultation processes, legal issues, as well as commercial and market influences. The Indicative Land Release Program is not the cause of house price increases. In fact, the annual ILRP, as I have said previously, represents less than two per cent of the ACT’s total established housing.

I was asked questions with regard to a shortfall of 114 against the target of 631 on the ILRP. That data is available in the SLA’s annual report. I note that the delays in variance occurred for a number of reasons, which included, for the Jacka release, for example, that this release had been referred to ACAT. Macnamara was due to the outstanding finalisation of planning approvals, and Casey, Kingston, Holt and Oaks Estate were due to due diligence issues outside of the SLA’s control.

For the SLA’s target for single blocks, movement across the Indicative Land Release Program occurs for a variety of reasons. Page 3 of the current Indicative Land Release Program notes that the ILRP is indicative in nature, is reviewed annually and is subject to change. Most sites listed on the ILRP are in the process of being made release-ready. Many variables impact when and if the land will be released for development.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video