Page 660 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008

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


Let me go to the first draft versus what is being presented today. The feedback from industry has been that, whilst they have not necessarily got everything they wanted, it was not a policy neutral document. It is still not, but it is probably much more policy neutral than it was. There have been some things added, and I have touched on those. There is a broad feeling—from feedback that I have had from industry—that they want to see it go ahead now. Even if they do not agree with every single aspect of it, they are very keen to see it go forward so that we can see the changes bedded down.

There will now need to be a more detailed discussion and a more detailed look at some of the policies that underpin the changes. That is something we look forward to engaging in over the coming months and years—how we can get the policy balance right. Some of the areas that I have raised in terms of infill will be part of that—and how we will underpin a sustainable transport system. I am not convinced that the core areas are the best way to do that, but I believe that it will need some changes.

Like industry, we do not endorse every last detail of the territory plan, but we do support it going forward. We are hopeful that these changes will deliver on the promise—not just with the changes to the territory plan but with the changes to the legislation that was passed last year and the amendments that will be debated later. Some of the legislation is still flawed, in our opinion.

The uses development concept has the potential to cause problems. But we are hopeful that the changes to the territory plan will improve outcomes. We want to see a more efficient planning system. We want to see housing become more affordable for our young people. We want to see less red tape. We want to see a vibrant infilled community. And we want to see the ability to expand on the outskirts of Canberra. To the extent that this territory plan will assist in that and make that somewhat easier, we support it.

Another aspect of the changes will be in administration. That will continue to be something that governments need to be looking at. We need to be looking at how it is administered and what kinds of resources are thrown where. At another time we can have the debate about the allocation of resources within our planning authority and whether we can be putting them to better effect so that we avoid some of the bottlenecks. Sometimes a few more resources in key parts of the planning authority—perhaps at the expense of other parts or perhaps an increase in net terms—may have some significant economic benefits for the ACT. That is something that we will be having debates about in the coming months.

In conclusion, let me say that we believe that this is a much better territory plan than the one that was originally presented last year in draft form. I commend the staff, who I know have worked very hard, on working with industry and the community to improve what was in the original draft, which clearly had some serious flaws and in relation to which there were some serious concerns from stakeholders. We will now wait and see. We will continue to have the policy debate about where our planning system needs to be improved and where our policy settings need to be changed so that Canberra can continue to grow—and grow in a sustainable way.


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