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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5237 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

committee, which was most critical of that element. Draft variation 175, a review of industrial land-use policies in Fyshwick, Symonston, Mitchell and Hume basically just tinkered at the edges. It took one large block in one part of Fyshwick and turned it from industrial land use A to B. It then took another equally large block just across the road and turned it from industrial land use B to A. That was the most significant change that occurred.

The government should have said, "Instead of just tinkering around the edges with what we have, let us look at what we could do if we started from scratch. If we had a blank sheet would we do it this way?"That is what planning policy in the 21st century should be about. That is what the planning policy of this government should be-a government that states that it is about planning for the future and for the people. That is what this government should have been doing.

It might not have been as easy as draft variation 175; it would have taken some time and the government would have had to embark on some serious and authentic consultation. It would have had to work with the community and it would have had to have some vision, spark and flare. All those things are lacking.

For the edification of Assembly members I will read the first recommendation of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment:

The committee has formed a strong view that this draft variation is not forward looking, lacks strategic, spatial and economic analysis with surrounding and adjacent residential areas, ignores practical and sensible business issues for small business and contradicts its own proposed policies for industrial land use.

The committee recommends that Draft Variation 175 be adopted as we had recommended for amendment, but only as an interim measure while further work is undertaken.

The minister and the planners agreed in part that draft variation 175 should be adopted, but mere members of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment dared not criticise those planners for their lack of vision. They said, "We undertook all this economic analysis. How dare you criticise us for that."The whole theme underpinning draft variation 175 was business as usual. There was no vision, no forward thinking and no statement to the effect "What would we have done if we had our druthers?"

When the Planning and Land Management Group said that it undertook a regular inventory of all its blocks and that it knew what was going on, one of the common criticisms by members of the public was that there were substantial reviews and inquiries into industrial land use in the ACT, for example, the 1998 synectics draft report that dealt with high-tech and environmental issues, amongst other things. Those reports seem to have been completely ignored in the preparation of draft variation 175.

Members of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment do not just want a "steady as it goes"approach to this issue. We do not want change for change's sake. However, when large numbers of people involved in industrial land use come to us and say, "The policy is broke,"we expect people to do something to fix it. Draft variation 175, the government's response to that plan and its actions since then have done nothing to fix that policy. This government's planning policies and spatial plan for Canberra do

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