Page 2308 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I want to look at some of the issues with the current system. I could name a number of individual cases, but in relation to, say, the Space apartments, which ended up being called in by the minister, which I believe was supported by the opposition at the time, I know that we had a fantastic development, a quality development on Northbourne Avenue of the kind of density that we want to be having along Northbourne Avenue and in the Civic area, which was almost scuttled by a residents’ association which had to do no more than put up $150 and argue its case.
That is one of the fundamental concerns of people who wish to put their money into developments which are a positive for the ACT. This is where the Greens, I think, need to start having a think about their policies. I know they do not like urban sprawl. The alternative to urban sprawl is increased density, especially around our town centres and in Civic, yet the Greens would, I suppose, allow those kinds of appeals, the often spurious appeals against good developments, to delay and sometimes potentially scuttle those developments.
The end result of that is that people can go broke, that people are less inclined to invest in these kinds of developments. Of course, when they do eventually get them through after there has been significant delay, the cost has been driven up. Developers are going to pass that on to buyers. We have a situation in the ACT where we have virtually the highest rents in the country. They are certainly right up there with those of all the other major cities. The ACT has amongst the highest rents in the country and the kinds of arrangements that have been in place have contributed to that.
I think the Greens need to think about that as well in terms of the fact that lots of people cannot afford to buy, as Dr Foskey would acknowledge, and the only alternative is to rent. If we allow all sorts of delays and if we allow all sorts of extra cost burdens as a result of having a poor planning system and a poor appeals process, the ones who will suffer in the end will be the renters right across the ACT. So I have a real concern to ensure that this area is properly reformed. I think this is one step. It certainly is not the whole answer, even for these particular areas. I think there might need to be further reform, but I think that at this stage it is certainly better than nothing.
Dr Foskey referred to those with a philosophical interest. That is where I have real concern. That is why we have a democratically elected Assembly. These are the kinds of things that are put to governments and oppositions in various ways and to other members of the Assembly. We as a city have philosophical concerns about protecting the environment and about urban form and urban design. Those are all issues that are looked at, I think, at various levels. I do not know that the best forum for that is always a disgruntled resident or a particular association.
We had the example of the Save the Ridge objections which ended up in the courts. There is no doubt that that delay caused significant damage to the ACT, to the taxpayers in the end. I do not think the government was free of blame there, but obviously that delay led to significant increases in costs. At the very least in that circumstance, Save the Ridge had to front up with some money, had to put up some surety. The problem, I think, with a lot of the AAT reviews is that the sum is $150. There is no risk, which invites more spurious claims. It invites those kinds of things to occur. That is why we cannot support this motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .