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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4894 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

There was a recent case with the Huntley estate in Bruce, where the subdivision of the second stage of the estate did not match the expectations of the residents of the first stage who were told that there would be an open space buffer between the two. It was only after the residents complained to the Planning and Environment Committee that there was any review of the developer's subdivision plan, but by then the construction of stage 2 had already started. Our amendment addresses this type of situation by ensuring that proposed plan variations for defined land are at least publicly notified and a period is allowed for public comment before the variation is approved by the Planning Authority.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.04): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the suggestion made by Ms Horodny as an example of where the problem is being fixed is a very poor example because it was not, in fact, an example of a situation where there was any breach of the Territory Plan. The plan was always clear that a certain buffer would have to be provided if there was to be residential land against industrial land. In the end that land was used for a different purpose. As a result, the requirement on the developer to provide that buffer disappeared. In the end we negotiated some compromise on that matter which I think has pleased a number, if not all, of the residents in that area.

The point is that the solution which Ms Horodny has proposed would not have solved that problem. I am not convinced that there is any case where a problem would be solved by what she is suggesting. Once again, the Greens' amendment is based on an entire fallacy, a complete misunderstanding of what the plan provides for and an unwillingness to listen to advice about how their proposed solution addresses a problem which does not exist.

MR MOORE (10.05): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is interesting that the Minister talks about addressing problems that do not exist. There are many occasions when legislation is about preventative measures. I think that, in itself, is an argument that is relatively weak. In this case I think that variations to the Territory Plan in terms of defined land are appropriately treated in a way that is public. That is really all that Ms Horodny has asked for. Why would they not be treated in a public way by somebody who advocates open government? Minister, do you advocate open government? There have been a number of examples where we have seen it. This should be one of them as well.

Mr Whitecross: Seen what? What have you seen?

MR MOORE: There have been a number of examples of Mr Humphries advocating open government. I just cannot think of any at the moment.

Mr Whitecross: No. Have you seen an example of where he has varied the Territory Plan and it has not been made public? That is what you said.

MR MOORE: No; examples of open government.

MS McRAE (10.07): Again we are dealing with a problem that does not exist. This does not need to be dealt with in anticipation. We will not support this amendment.

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