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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2755 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

completely and pushed ahead with his original design, which was then approved and upheld by the AAT. Cases such as this demonstrate that the HQSD process is currently unenforceable and needs to be further strengthened, both legislatively and administratively.

I am glad that the government is looking more closely at the current arrangements to do with HQSD. However, I am not prepared to trade one idea for another in this issue and support this variation with some unenforceable conditions to try to improve the planning processes in some other areas. I believe that the proposal I put forward repeatedly would have allowed us to get more things right than we are getting wrong. Variation 200, I believe, will not solve Canberra's planning problems and we may now be stuck with it for years or even decades into the future.

MS TUCKER (12.02): The Greens will not be supporting this disallowance motion. The latest version of DV 200 is, in our view, a reasonable framework for planning our city. It is not perfect, but certainly an improvement on the random planning regime set up by the Liberals. It is consistent with Greens' policy in that it targets consolidation around services and facilities. The principle of core areas is significant and worthy of support. It lends itself to sustainability, efficiency and housing choice. It makes good planning sense.

As members are aware, I was not able to support the December 2002 version of DV 200. After considering the issues for quite a long time and talking to many people, we publicly issued a list of changes and associated initiatives that the Greens required the government to adopt in order to get our support. As a result of those negotiations and the minister's adoption of some of my proposals, I am prepared to support the latest version of DV 200 rather than, as I have said, allowing what would be the inevitable alternative, that is, a return to the largely uncontrolled regime that existed under the previous government, with the resultant further invasion of suburbs of insensitive and inappropriate development.

The Greens tentatively supported the original version of DV 200 because, as I have already explained, it was largely in keeping with the Greens' planning policy. There was considerable community input to the consultation phase, with PALM receiving many differing submissions containing support for some measures, reservations about others and recommendations for how it should be modified. However, the version of DV 200 that the government released in December last year, following this consultation, caused considerable disquiet in the community, particularly as it appeared to radically change direction on some very important issues. As we are well aware, it then became the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, which recommended that the government not proceed with it.

It is indeed unusual for me to take a position against the unanimous recommendations of a committee report, but I have in the past not agreed with recommendations of reports, as I am sure members are aware. I can think of several obvious ones, such as the Gungahlin Drive extension proposal. But I do think that it is very important to stress at this point in time that I have the right to do that. It is up to each member of the Assembly to understand the issues before them and make a decision according to their policy position and conscience. That is fundamental to the democratic process.

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