Page 2395 - Week 08 - Thursday, 6 June 2013

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

The minimum consultation period for technical amendments has been increased from 15 to 20 days, which allows extra time for the community to comment on the amendments without unnecessarily delaying the progress of technical variations.

The bill proposes several amendments to the technical amendments process. The amendments relate to future urban areas and the approval of an estate development plan, or EDP. A future urban area is an area of territory land identified in the territory plan for future urban development. During the planning process the zoning for an area is refined. Changes to the zoning are classified as technical amendments to the territory plan and can therefore be made with limited community consultation.

Under these amendments, land in a future urban area may be rezoned to introduce or amend codes that apply to this land. This would usually be done through the use of a concept plan. All changes to a concept plan must be consistent with the territory plan and the structure plan, and can be amended through the technical amendment process. The concept plan is used in the preparation and assessment of the EDP for a suburb.

There are two types of EDPs—those for future urban areas and those for existing areas. EDPs for future urban areas can include the zones that will apply, the ongoing provisions that will apply and identification of block boundaries. EDPs for existing areas can only include ongoing provisions and the identification of block boundaries.

Amendments to the EDP for a future urban area can be uplifted into the territory plan as technical amendments and without further community consultation, but the current legislation does not allow this to occur without variations to the EDP for an existing area. The amendments in this bill will ensure that both types of EDP will be treated in the same way.

In conclusion, it seems to me that this bill could be the first of many clawback mechanisms to make DV306 workable. That said, the Canberra Liberals will support the bill.

Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 12.26 to 2.30 pm.

Health—bush healing farm

Statement by Speaker

MADAM SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I would like to deal with an issue that arose in question time yesterday. During question time Mr Hanson asked a supplementary question of the Chief Minister about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander healing farm, and I asked that Ms Porter withdraw some comments. Ms Porter contested what I thought I had heard. I have had the tape checked and I was advised that Ms Porter can be heard clearly to say, “Do you care? I bet you don’t care,” which is what I thought I had heard, and I ask Ms Porter to withdraw.

Ms Porter: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

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