Page 1693 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013

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

(a) invite community feedback on specific clauses of concern that might be addressed through technical variations; and

(b) report to the Assembly on the progress of any technical variations related to Variation 306 by the last sitting day in October 2013.

I will not speak any further to this other than to refer to the earlier advice from the Speaker, and I now move this motion as a follow-up to the previous discussion.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.17): Whilst we will support the passing of this motion, we do not have any confidence whatsoever that, after the government has failed to listen to the consultative committee, the expert reference group and the views espoused at the planning committee, suddenly ACTPLA and the minister are going to start listening to community concerns. All the issues Mr Rattenbury talked about—that is, an undertaking that ACTPLA and/or the minister are going to look into—were raised years ago; they were raised with DV301 and DV303 and all those iterations of the consultation process. I think this motion is far more about Mr Rattenbury being able to say he did something when, in actual fact, he is in lock-step with the government on this issue.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.18): The government will support Mr Rattenbury’s motion. I make the observation that if you listened to Mr Coe and took him at his word, you would assume that everyone was in uniform dissent with this variation, and that is simply not the case. Even with those groups Mr Coe seeks to meld together, like residents groups and industry groups, yes, they all have some concern with some parts of the variation, but they are not the same concerns. Some residents groups support provisions that industry groups oppose, and some industry groups support provisions that residents groups oppose, and some support uniformly all provisions. It is simply false for Mr Coe to suggest that there is somehow this uniform dissent on all the issues. It is misleading to the community, and it is a simplistic debate in this place.

What is very clear is that, like all major variations to the territory plan, there is not uniformity of view. The obligation on this place is to decide whether or not, on balance, the reform is a worthy one. I am pleased that today the Assembly has endorsed the variation. I am pleased today that the Assembly has said this variation should proceed. That is a good thing for our community. It is a good thing for improving the standard of residential subdivision. It is a good thing for making sure that people can live in homes that are not overshadowed by their neighbours. It is a good thing to make sure that the intensity of redevelopment in existing suburban areas is consistent with the character of those areas. These are all the outcomes that community wants, supports and will see as a result of this variation proceeding.

Motion agreed to.

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