Page 128 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
100 years ago it was a need to construct a capital which brought thousands of people here, often living in shoddy conditions but committed to the cause and opportunity of making a better life for themselves, their families and future generations of Australians that would call Canberra home.
Through the early years of the federal parliament, the World War II years, the Menzies era and since, construction has played a vital role in creating wealth, opportunities, education and training and heritage for us all to enjoy. Today, construction, alongside education and the public service, are three of our biggest sources of employment and investment. However, it is construction that stands out as the largest industry free of government competition but, as I will discuss, certainly not free of government interference.
Madam Speaker, only the most strident libertarians would say that there is never a role for government regulation or oversight. In Canberra there is a role for the government to safeguard certain rights and standards but that interference must be done carefully and with the best interests of all in mind. I believe that the government does not have the best interests of employees, employers or Canberra at large in mind when they make it harder and harder to invest in the capital.
Whilst there are many costs involved with the administration of the federation, one of the benefits is the ability for decisions to be made closer to the people they will affect. We are fortunate to have an Assembly and territory bureaucracy so close to every resident of the ACT. However, we have a Labor-Greens administration which is not making the most of that position. Instead, we have a government which has been hijacked by two extreme members—Simon Corbell and Shane Rattenbury. Their view is to make construction harder in the ACT and to limit growth in housing and population.
In contrast, the Queanbeyan City Council is doing exactly what it should: competing. In our competitive federal model, different jurisdictions have the ability to target their rules and regulations to suit their requirements. The Queanbeyan City Council under Mayor Tim Overall is doing what they should: competing. They are presenting an attractive option for investment which is luring investment away from Canberra.
However, as well as they are competing, beating the ACT is not very hard. We have got a government that is actively driving investment away from Canberra and Queanbeyan is the beneficiary. I think it is a tragedy that there are Canberrans who want to live in Canberra but who cannot afford it due to the excessive fees, charges, rates and costs placed on property in the ACT. The Canberra Liberals will fight this and do whatever we can to make Canberra a better place to invest and a place more available for people to live.
Madam Speaker, my motion calls for several items that this government could implement to make investment here in the ACT more likely. One such item would be to repeal territory plan variation 306. This variation puts unreasonable demands on property in the ACT. It has made construction harder and it has brought about many perverse outcomes that I do not think would be the underlying intention of the variation. It has put undue regulations in place and made it far too difficult to comprehend the territory plan and what exactly its objective is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video