Page 2903 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Unfortunately, it is up to businesses to actually implement the government’s variation 306. I think they have some pretty legitimate concerns. It is disappointing that, to date, the government has not been willing to accept these concerns as genuine. But it will be very interesting to see whether what I predicted some time ago will eventuate—that is, very soon we will see a technical variation to the territory plan to fix up part of the mess which is variation 306. It is disappointing the government has not agreed to a review of variation 306 and has refused to apologise for describing elements of our construction community as being hysterical.
The government has also refused to provide the cost implications of variation 306 because it says it will have no significant impact on land release or house and land prices. I find that very hard to believe, especially as we go out into other areas of Molonglo where you get some blocks on higher gradients. That is when we will see the difficulty of working within 306 on display. It is interesting to see what is happening in Denman Prospect. I understand the government is in negotiations with the one registered bidder for the site, and rumour has that it is nowhere near the $100 million it was touting. I think it is fair to say, as reported in the Canberra Times, that variation 306 is a component. The reduced yield and the poor planning outcomes as a result of variation 306 will result in a lower price for Denman Prospect than would otherwise have been achieved. So not only are there qualitative problems for the ACT but there are also quantitative problems as a result of variation 306.
The LDA, I think, should focus on its core business of land release. Sometimes we have seen the LDA venturing into other opportunities in the construction game and going well beyond the initial intention of what the Kingston and Gungahlin development authorities were originally merged into the LDA to create. I hope that, as a result of the opposition’s questions, especially on variation 306, the government will review the variation and seriously consider its impact, especially on greenfields developments, and will bring back to this place some form of variation, whether it be a technical amendment or a full draft variation, so we can restore confidence to the construction sector once again.
MR DOSZPOT (Molonglo) (5.12): Those who have an interest in things sporting in this territory—indeed, that accounts for a very large percentage of the population—are well aware that, when it comes to funding, it is very much a case of the haves and the have-nots. While good policy is always difficult to balance against the need to also deliver good politics, here in the ACT we have a government that pays lip service to community sport and local sporting venues but focuses essentially on future domed stadia or attracting international teams. While, no doubt, staging international cricket matches in Manuka is an absolute plus for Canberra and the presence of a notional Canberra-based first grade AFL team is also a positive step, one has to wonder why local sport has to pay the price.
Sporting groups in Canberra know there are many demands on government for funding, and they do not look to government to supply everything to them. Sporting clubs are expert at innovative ways to raise funds for uniforms, training equipment, game travel and match-day needs. But two issues of complaint are common to all sports and beyond the ability of the local club level to resolve—the cost of grounds,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video