Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 14 Hansard (Tuesday, 28 November 2017) . . Page.. 5181 ..
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (6.27), in reply: This is a very simple question before us today. As the representatives of the people of Canberra, we have the opportunity to say that enough is enough. We need consultation. We need better analysis before these huge changes are made and we have, somewhat after the time, already agreed that through agreeing to the review that was previously put to the Assembly.
The review, as some members of this place have already said, is the right way to go ahead. But these huge changes should not take place until such time as a comprehensive review of all elements of the LVC has taken place. We need to listen to the feedback.
Mr Gentleman said that he and his directorate have listened to the feedback and that is why they allowed previous arrangements to continue for some time. Madam Speaker, there is an admission right there that the change was wrong, was bad, was ill-conceived and ill-considered in the first place. There is an admission if ever you have heard one.
He has also said that they are now looking at development applications on a case-by-case basis. Yet again it is another acknowledgement of a lack of consultation, a lack of understanding of the changes, the impact this would have on the market, an acknowledgement that it is an ill-considered and ill-conceived increase of 300 per cent.
I have heard Ms Le Couteur talk about the fact that she agrees with many of the points I have made yet, apparently, will not vote against this disallowance motion. I would like to say to Ms Le Couteur and to the Greens: listen to your own words. The Greens said, “We were particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on housing affordability and infill.”
It is not about windfall gains to developers, because who is the bunny that pays in the end? Who is the person that has to buy a house or a unit? It is your average person: my kids, my sister, your friend, your cousin trying to get into the housing market. They are the ones who will be affected by this.
We are not talking about windfall gains to developers. Mr Gentleman attempts to smear us by saying that we are trying to approve these windfall gains to developers. We are trying to say that this will have an impact on housing affordability. Despite the way that she will be voting today, Ms Le Couteur many times has said she agrees with that. She said, “We were particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on housing affordability and infill.”
Madam Speaker, surely it is common sense—unless you are a government that has been in power for quite some time and are so arrogant—when you want to make sweeping changes. I for one would consider a 300 per cent increase to be a sweeping change. I am not sure about anyone else but to me that is pretty much a sweeping change. If you want to make sweeping changes to how development in this community is done, you consult.