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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 108 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

also say, "How much more important it is when we are talking about a community asset." We should have a good financial management attitude. That is what Mr Corbell's legislation is about.

It is actually better than that. I think the government has been serious, and I will give some examples. The bill says that you should maintain 100 per cent, but if you have a very good reason for remission, a reason that suits the community, then you should encourage people to do a development that suits the community. We have done that with residential development in Civic. We have done it with shopping centres in the suburbs. They needed a boost; they needed some kind of assistance from government. We could have done it by providing cash up front, but that is more difficult to manage in a budget. We can use the asset to the benefit of the community in this way. Mr Corbell's legislation sets out a methodology for going about it which is acceptable to me. We already do that, and Mr Corbell here has set it out in legislation.

It is about is getting the best use of our community asset-not for the benefit of some private developer, not for the benefit of some small private groups but for the benefit of the community as a whole. We are talking about the tension between the community's interest in the land and somebody who wishes to make more money. Mr Berry asked how often the benefit is passed on. We know that it is rarely passed on.

We all make decisions about the way the tension is resolved. Mr Corbell, I believe, has correctly gathered that tension. I have circulated one small amendment. Mr Corbell has spoken to me about this before. I apologise that I did not pick it up earlier. The Commissioner for Housing remission should be 25 per cent. Why would you do that? It is clearly in the community interest to assist in public housing. Historically, it has been 50 per cent until relatively recently. My amendment simply brings it back to the historical level. I have had a discussion with Mr Corbell. He is comfortable with that. Should this legislation go through, I hope that members will support my amendment.

The test we apply is: is it in the community interest? The test is not: is it in the interest of the profit-making of a small section of the community? When you apply that test to Mr Corbell's legislation, the answer is yes. He is ensuring that our actions are for the benefit of the community as a whole. That is why I will be supporting his legislation. That is why I say to my colleagues around me, "Reconsider your position. Think about the highest priority we have in government." The decisions we make should be first and foremost in the community interest. In this case the community interest is best served in the way set out in Mr Corbell's legislation, in the way that I have argued for since 1989 and will continue to argue for.

MRS BURKE (11.48): I am wondering who we are talking about when we say "community". I was listening to Mr Berry and Mr Moore with very pricked-up ears. Can we just look at the big picture? We should not forget that the effect of this debate and the decision is twofold. I would suggest that the comments that have been made are somewhat naive, because we have forgotten the other side of the equation. Not only does it affect big and small developers, but it also affects the mums and dads who are, let us remember, community. They may want to enter into dual occupancy. Can we remember the big picture for Canberra? I am wondering.

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