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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2759 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Our second last point was that there be further review of the high-quality, sustainable design process involving community and industry consultation, including the development and application of sustainability indicators. The government has agreed to this very important issue. At this point, the HQSD process has served as an educative process and has resulted in some improvement in the quality of design.

I would say that on the whole, where developers and architects are committed or even just open-minded, it has been influential. However, there have been problems in terms of process, which we are all aware of, in terms of compliance and in terms of falling short of sustainability outcomes. Our consultations have made us quite well aware of the problems with the workings and resourcing of HQSD. I do not have time now to go into more detail on that, but we have given the government notice that we are watching what happens with great interest.

In keeping with the committee's recommendation, we also asked for the minimum block size for dual occupancy to be kept to 800 square metres, which the government agreed to. I think that the government was thinking about doing so anyway.

We do think that Canberra's character and amenity will be far better protected over the next two years by this imperfect but significantly modified variation than would be the case if Canberra were left to the previously existing regime for the next two years. Having taken a position between all the competing interests and views on DV 200 and having gained the government's commitment to review it in two years, we will be keeping a close watching brief on how it is working in practice and what problems there are and we will continue to work with community groups to identify the problems and work on solutions. That applies not only to DV 200 but also to the neighbourhood planning process, HQSD and the community planning forum processes that also have a significant bearing on the community's confidence and effective participation in Canberra's planning system.

We have received a lot of support for the position we have taken on this variation. I have continually consulted with the community and had a meeting again last week with community planning representatives who, on the whole, agreed that we do need to support the greater protections that this variation introduces, even though it is not a perfect document.

I do want to acknowledge and thank the many people who have talked to us about this issue. I appreciate their patience and willingness to contribute. There were quite a few very long weekend calls and meetings. I also want to acknowledge the good grace shown by the people who do not support our position but who also worked with us. I particularly appreciate their contribution.

I also appreciate Ms Dundas' comments in this debate. I think that it has been unfortunate that Mrs Cross and Mrs Dunne, in particular, have chosen to attack my motivations. I do not think that personal attacks particularly enhance the public debate. I think that this is a very important issue for Canberra and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (12.17): I have to rise to address DV 200. I will start with the assertion by the planning minister that development in previous

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