Page 1775 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
With its model determined in the Development Assessment Forum, its aim was always going to be that of easing obstacles to development. Input through public consultations have at best allowed for changes around the edges rather than determining the basic principles which would underlie the thrust of reform.
Planning has always been an issue of intense community interest in the ACT. My theory on this is that it reflects our short history as a planned city, during which time we have seen the best and the worst of planning fashions. Because this city is still in the making and not yet a done deal, interested individuals and groups have felt that it is worth their while to try and influence planning decisions to make the city reflect their aspirations—primarily to enhance the bush capital characteristics that have made Canberra unique.
I believe that, when they wake up to the impacts of this legislation, they will be shocked to find that their efforts to safeguard their communities have no avenue for expression. They will learn that they should have made the most of their consultation opportunities before they even knew that there were such opportunities, when the direction of this legislation was already set in the minds of the governments and the bureaucrats who implement planning law.
Other approaches are possible, however, which have as their basis needs other than the continued establishment of new suburbs and which put the environment, affordable housing and other social considerations at the heart of planning decisions. One such model is the natural resources management legislation introduced in New Zealand in 1991 and tweaked and expanded a number of times since. While the resources management act has a number of problems, including the one experienced by ACT residents—that by the time they find out about a development it is often too late to affect it—it does have one major difference from the ACT planning reform legislation. It explicitly mandates the application of an environmental lens to planned developments from the beginning. In fact, in 2004 a climate change lens was added to the New Zealand act.
I believe a climate change trigger was at one time also intended to be part of the ACT legislation. With our knowledge of the likely impact of climate change on the ACT—our weather, our water resources and our vulnerability to fire—it is a great shame that this momentous legislation, being presented at a time when awareness is so strong, does not require developments to be considered in respect of their contribution to greenhouse gases and their suitability under the likely impacts of climate change. I could go into the effect of these provisions in some detail, but I will save that for a later debate. I simply make the point that this legislation represents a number of missed opportunities.
As I have previously mentioned, the government has chosen to walk away from ongoing and meaningful community engagement on planning issues. There was a view put by previous Assembly committees, and indeed by the ACT Labor Party when it was in opposition, that the planning process needed to be an ongoing dialogue between government and community and that this dialogue needed to occur at all levels of planning. That is a view that the Greens still hold. We understand that this might slow things down a bit at times, but like all collaborative processes, it has the potential to deliver much better outcomes for all parties involved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .