Page 2324 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 5 June 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting that the government should say that we are in for tough times with the coalition government. How tough can times be if the government expects to sell 4,800 blocks this year, 4,700 blocks next year and 4,000 blocks the year after? The fact is that many businesses in Canberra are currently going through a tough time. That has got nothing to do with Mr Abbott. That has got to do with bad financial management here in the ACT and up on the hill. They are the reasons why so many businesses in Canberra are struggling. It is the lack of certainty. It is the lack of confidence. It is in effect government mismanagement that has created an environment in which people do not want to take risks.
Here in the ACT I do not think we have enough people who go out on a limb and take risks, create opportunities and who are generally entrepreneurial. We do not have enough of those people in Canberra. Yet here in the ACT it seems that when we do get these people, we seem to stifle that innovation. One such way that happens is, of course, the change of use charge. The change of use charge seems to me to be absolutely counterintuitive to what the government states they want in terms of urban renewal. If you do not want to push people onto greenfield development, if you want to get people living in built-up areas, then surely you would be encouraging the change of use, not restricting it.
But that is what this policy is all about. It is about actually not having urban renewal and pushing more and more out into greenfield development. We in the opposition do not have a problem with greenfield development. We just think it is hypocritical when the government says that they have got a problem with it, yet all the policies are geared towards pushing more and more people to that position.
Another significant hindrance to the ACT property sector and to potential purchasers of houses here in the ACT is, of course, DV306. I think it is highly likely that we are going to see technical amendments come through in the coming months to try and patch the serious flaws which exist in draft variation 306, which has now been enacted into the territory plan. I think the provisions in the variation will severely restrict the property sector here in the ACT. I think it potentially will have a far greater effect on property here in the ACT than a change in the federal government might ever have. The fact is that under DV306 the extension of almost any house in Gungahlin is going to be near impossible. It will be near impossible due to the shadow limitations.
There are also many, many other cumbersome regulations within variation 306 which really will put the handbrake on property development here in the ACT. The real risk to the ACT property sector, the real risk to the ACT economy, is not a future Liberal government; it is the current Labor governments here in the ACT and, of course, federally.
What does all this mean? In competitive federalism when we have a little island jurisdiction like we have in the ACT, it means every time we make it harder and harder and harder to develop property here in the ACT, every time we drive up the cost of property here in the ACT, whether it be through land, whether it be through rates, whether it be through many of the other taxes which this government has placed on the sector, all that ends up doing is driving more people into New South Wales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video