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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4459 ..

MRS DUNNE: No, I don't think I will today-I couldn't be bothered. On top of the fact that the land price being reaped at Yerrabi is so expensive that the average person cannot possibly hope to live there, the costs associated with the design caveats in the lease and development conditions make it too expensive for the average person to build a house. They cannot afford to buy a block. A couple of years ago a first home buyer would have been able to afford a house and land package for the price of blocks of land that are currently on sale out at Yerrabi. Suddenly that amount of money will only buy a block of land. And this is what this minister hopes to deliver in a workers' paradise-land which is unobtainable for the average tradesman and his wife and family.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.48): Mr Speaker I think it is important at this point in the debate that I set very clearly on the record the government's position in relation to the establishment of the Land Development Agency. I want to start by referring to some principles. Who owns the land asset in the ACT? The community does. We have a leasehold system and all undeveloped land, land retained for residential development purposes, is owned by this community. In fact, it is owned by all of the Australian people and it is given to this community and this Assembly to manage responsibly on behalf of the community as a whole. That is the whole purpose of a leasehold system.

It follows from that that any benefit that is obtained from the improvement in value of that land is returned to the community. That is the whole purpose behind the establishment of the Land Development Agency-to return to the community the benefit of the improved value of developed land. As the government outlined in its election commitments, it is also about delivering better quality in residential subdivision design and more liveable neighbourhoods for people.

Mrs Dunne sings the praises of the private sector. Indeed, the private sector delivers, in some instances, high-quality residential estates. That us why the government has indicated in its establishment of the Land Development Agency that it is the very clear intention of the agency and of this government to work in partnership with private sector land development organisations to deliver high-quality residential estates.

But Mrs Dunne's rhetoric is so full blown, so overblown, that I think it is worth putting a couple of points on the record. First of all, she says the Liberal Party is opposed to state-run businesses-state-run businesses, I assume, like the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority, established under the Liberal government; state-run businesses like the Gungahlin Development Authority, established under the Liberal government; state-run businesses like Totalcare Industries, established under the Liberal government; state-run businesses like ACTTAB, ActewAGL and a range of other organisations established under the Liberal government. Mr Speaker, if that is the argument that Mrs Dunne is putting about as her in-principle opposition, then it is her argument, not mine, that has feet of clay.

Mr Speaker, she goes on to make the point that this is about the government seeking to be the arbiter of good taste. Let me point her again to the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority. At Kingston you probably have the most highly regulated design outcome of any development in this city-a regulatory framework which this

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