Page 1933 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
going to be fat in the agency that would not be there if they were dealing with their own money.
We saw a $50,000 sign for the EpiCentre advertising the sale of a piece of land. Did they really think that the average punter driving past EpiCentre was going to say, “Look, EpiCentre, I might be able to stump up a few million bucks and make a bid for that.” Come on—it was an absolute waste of money. We have seen that over time. The marketing costs have been in the vicinity of $3 million and $4 million a year for a monopoly land developer. Where else are you going when you want to buy a block in Canberra? Up until very recently you had to go to the Land Development Agency if you wanted a residential block. So this idea that it has to have these marketing exercises which market the brand is an outrage. It is an example of why we should never have gone down this path, because we have seen the wastage.
In many ways, the wastage in that kind of spending is not the biggest scandal. It is not the worst part of the LDA. The scandal with the LDA is that it has failed—an abject failure—to deliver on the goals that it set, and one of the most important was to make housing more affordable. It has made it less affordable. It has not released enough land. The former planning minister has joined us to defend the LDA. I suspect he does not feel that the current planning minister’s heart is really going to be in it. He has come to the chamber to tell us why the LDA is such a good idea. Maybe he can refer back to some of his comments: “The move towards greater government land development will contribute to assisting housing affordability.” Maybe he can back that up with some figures as to how he has achieved those goals. I suspect that he has joined us because he does not feel that Andrew Barr’s heart is really going to be in defending the LDA.
It is clear that the LDA has failed to deliver on those goals. It has failed in a serious way. The burden of that has been borne particularly by first home buyers in the territory, many of whom have left the territory and have been forced over the border to find opportunities for reasonably affordable housing. That is disappointing. That is one of the greatest disappointments of the Land Development Agency, and that is why we, the opposition, will be opposing these clauses.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.21): I am joining Mr Seselja in opposing clause 42 (2). However, no doubt my reasons are different.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The question is that clauses 30 to 44 be agreed to. I do not think you are able to be selective.
DR FOSKEY: Clause 42?
MR SPEAKER: Clauses 30 to 44.
DR FOSKEY: Yes, and this is clause 42.
Mr Barr: We are going to take them as a whole. We agreed to that.
DR FOSKEY: I believe I can speak, however.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .