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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4331 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, finally, I would like to comment on the dissenting report. Mrs Littlewood did make a dissenting report. I suppose that it is enough for me to say that I disagree that the community has been overconsulted on this. The issue that we are dealing with - the section master plans in particular and the urban housing code - is a whole new concept. That is the issue that we want the consultation on. We do not want to go over what has been consulted on before; but we want to concentrate specifically on revising in terms of these issues. That is why I was keen to see it followed through in this approach.

MS McRAE (7.30): I think, Mr Speaker, this is the longest title for a committee report that I have ever heard.

Mr Moore: We are going to shorten our titles, are we?

MS McRAE: Yes, as Mr Moore points out, perhaps we need a short title. This report is very important and I sincerely hope that the Government takes very seriously the challenge that this committee has put out. One can readily understand why the dissenting comments were made.

Mr Moore: What government, Ms McRae? I do not see a government.

MS McRAE: This is true. We have the numbers, Mr Moore. It is two to one here. I can readily understand why the Government representative put in her dissenting report, because, from the Government's perspective, perhaps it is time that a decision was made. Why it is so important that the Government actually listens is that this is one clear example of where the Assembly does actually work together very well and does accurately reflect the views of the community, rather than taking a purely confrontationist stand as is necessary on some other matters.

The interesting thing is that the conclusions that the committee came to were all around issues that were raised by PALM officers in consultation with the community. They were not new issues that PALM suddenly decided of its own accord, or tried to set up in any way in confrontation with what the community was saying. PALM was commissioned, on behalf of the Government, to work forward with this variation to the Territory Plan, to ascertain the community views on the changes that were proposed, and then to come back to the Government with directions for how the variations should proceed.

The history of the variation is also very important because it arose out of the perceived failures of B1. What had already been tested was a notional zone within an area of the inner north of Canberra, to give some certainty and direction for development and redevelopment in those areas. What the Government found after several years was that the level of disquiet and concern for all concerned was such that a revision was needed. Therefore, the notion of B11 and B12 was born.

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