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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1092 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

existing law is stronger, it remains in effect. Mr Kaine raised the question: what does this mean? Mr Speaker, it is the same as the process that has seen interim effect applying to about 100 DVPs since 1993. It is the process. Interim effect is the process that we go through every time a DVP is released.

I am happy to offer briefings on the land act and the Territory Plan and explain even more fully the words "interim effect", but interim effect does not give anything away. In fact, interim effect becomes more onerous, because the more onerous of whichever part, the existing or the DVP, has the overriding effect. So this is tougher; for a period, interim effect means that it is tougher. The Lansdown guidelines have no force under law. This will give the Lansdown guidelines on the 0.35 plot ratio the force that is required.

Mr Hargreaves said that I have unfettered powers. Ministers probably dream of having unfettered powers, but the powers that I have are not being changed by this proposal, because the land act still will be in force and these changes are being incorporated into that through the interim effect, which means that the more onerous of the parts referred to, the DVP or the existing, will have effect. Mr Hargreaves claims that only the developers will benefit. In fact, the developers might find themselves a little bit worse off for the period they have to work within the more onerous of the parts.

Mr Speaker, this proposal is about improving on Labor's planning mistakes from the early 1990s. Mr Corbell acknowledges every now and then that they did some things wrong. He is never very clear and he has never tendered the list of things, but the changes that were made to the existing AMCORD were made in 1993 and Labor's changes with the original ACTCode in 1993 which reduced things like street and verge widths stifled quality development and resulted in some of the developments in the new suburbs that we all now believe to be unacceptable or substandard by today's expectations. I am not sure why any of us should believe what Mr Corbell brings before us, given that on so many issues in the last six months he has been about politics and scaremongering, not facts.

Mr Speaker, let me put the debate into perspective. Canberra is a special place. It has its own unique character and most of us have an opinion on what contributes to that character. The one defining element on which all of us are likely to agree is the quality of Canberra's landscape setting. Ask anyone and they will tell you that the parks, the trees, the streetscape, the hills, the lakes and the rural vistas are integral to the livableness and special attraction of the city.

At the broadest levels, both the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan set all planning against a framework of protecting and enhancing our landscape setting. It is clearly in the interest of governments of either persuasion to do that. In reality, the dynamic nature of planning for a changing community means, if you think of Canberra as a canvas painting, that sometimes you need to go back and touch it up.

To illustrate that, an increasingly significant impact on our housing requirements and mix results from the demands of the ageing population. That does have an impact. The 60-plus sector of the population is forecast to increase from 36,300 in June 2000 to 58,700 by 2010. There are many resource implications associated with that, not the least for housing. The talents of the planning artists in this case in tackling the drivers of change is to keep the original picture firmly in mind, retaining what we cherish, at the

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