Page 908 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
something which the government will be closely considering. The territory plan, in its principles, has a strong focus on sustainability in the urban environment. Sustainable development is the number one goal of the plan. Other goals include an efficient, healthy and liveable city, economic vitality and community wellbeing, and environmental and high-quality design—in other words, a triple bottom line approach.
As Dr Foskey rightly points out, the challenge is to convert words into action—and that, again, is something the government is focusing extremely strongly on. As I have outlined in my ministerial statement on transport reform and in the range of measures we are adopting through planning system reform, the government has this clearly on its agenda. The Canberra spatial plan has a strong emphasis on enhancing the sustainability of urban development and introduces strategic policies for water, biodiversity conservation, urban form and employment location, transport and service delivery. We will continue to monitor our achievements against the spatial plan. The spatial plan itself has benchmarks to measure whether or not we are meeting our goals in relation to these outcomes.
This is an issue that the government considers to be a significant one for our community. We do need new measures to improve the sustainability of our urban dwellings. We do need to have measures that see less energy and water use, increased solar efficiency and comfort and increased water efficiency. Importantly, we also need a quality of development that creates liveable and attractive spaces for people. The government is committed to these goals. The assessment of tools such as BASIX is a major task for the planning authority at the moment. I am confident that, in the coming months, members will see the delivery of many of these things that Dr Foskey outlines in her matter of public importance today.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (4.56): I would like to address one of the points that Dr Foskey made about slugging retailers. I would be pretty concerned if the plan were to say that Harvey Norman could not sell certain types of fridges or appliances and had to reduce 25 or 30 per cent of their stock. I am sure the end result would be that a lot of retailers would set up in Queanbeyan and that there would be none in Canberra. I would certainly be concerned with a plan like that. I think it would be a bit misguided. Mr Corbell noted that the additional $8,000 to $9,000 in costs to the average dwelling is significant for first home buyers. I agree with that, but I note that Mr Corbell recently stated that $5,000 in costs for bushfire protection standards for first home buyers is not significant, so I guess the line must be somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000.
More generally, I am not sure why we are discussing this matter again today. As Mr Corbell pointed out, we have on the record for the last sitting period Dr Foskey’s statements on the sustainability of the New South Wales BASIX system. She sought implementation of mandatory targets with short timeframes and with a big stick approach, once again, being used.
The Liberals highlighted a number of measures before the last election for the sustainability of both commercial and residential buildings: solar hot-water, energy efficiency and other measures that would result in industry and consumers receiving delivery of better environmental outcomes in building construction. I also draw Dr Foskey’s attention to examples of quality buildings and construction in Canberra that are leading the way in energy efficiency, green star ratings and high-quality buildings that tenants are keen to take up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .