Page 4440 - Week 12 - Thursday, 26 October 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

would see that as an enormous increase if that was something we had to pay. From $7,500 to $30,000 is just incredible. For a six-unit development, that pushes the cost from $37,500 to $180,000. It moves many developments from viable to unviable and, as I said earlier, will contribute to housing unaffordability because if builders go ahead with this they need to factor that cost into the sales price. It is going to affect everyone who wants to buy a unit in Canberra. It just does not stack up.

Prior to the budget a dual occupancy built on schedule 1 land would have incurred a lease variation charge of $7,500. In the last six years this has seen 1,368 dwellings developed. A dual occupancy built on schedule 2 land incurs a lease variation charge of around $35,000, give or take. In the last five years 244 dwellings have been built on schedule 2 land. It is clear that by increasing the lease variation charge many of these developments will no longer be viable. Despite this, the government has decided on the creation of a dual occupancy lease variation charge of $60,000. That will be apportioned on the sale of those units. The price will be driven up. We have already seen the number of rushed development applications that have been put in since this announcement.

Had the government done its job on consultation from the start there would have been no need to backtrack and put in that honeymoon period to allow people who had already purchased their land to have their developments without paying this 300 per cent increase. Good policy happens when there is consultation. This is something that I have said over and over and over again and it is not happening here.

What we have seen is that the Greens supported the budget through the cabinet process and then passed it on the floor of the Assembly to support the increase in the LVC. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are trying to ride in like a white knight on their charger and say, “We’re going to call for a review of the LVC.” But it was they who supported this increase, this unfair and inequitable increase, in the first place. They supported an increase in the LVC but are now arguing for a review of it here. This is not Greens business time. That was yesterday, when they could have put forward a motion. They put forward a motion about the canopy of trees and having a tree canopy curator, instead of putting forward this motion from Ms Le Couteur which has been on the notice paper for weeks.

What we are seeing here is many bites by Ms Le Couteur in trying to get us to talk about her private members’ issues. They are subverting the process in the Assembly by using executive members’ business to put forward what was essentially a Greens motion. I can just see now the tweet from Mr Rattenbury: “LVC increase. We voted for it in the budget. Now we are trying to pretend we are going to save you. #sorrynotsorry.” It is the kind of thing I would see from Mr Rattenbury. He likes to put forward proposed tweets for other people. There is one for him to put.

The government have already had to backtrack on this change, making conditional arrangements for the next six months and ordering a review in 18 months time. This is policy on the run. They should have done their homework first up and consulted the people who know what needs to be done in this area, the people who are concerned about housing affordability, the people who understood that this increase would contribute to housing unaffordability. Instead we saw the Greens support the budget,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video