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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 27 October 2015) . . Page.. 3581 ..

under the former Liberal government were ideal. But this government railed against them. When they were in opposition Mr Corbell, as the shadow planning minister, railed against dual occupancies. Here they are now doing a spot rezoning.

As I quoted earlier, this is “unplanning”. As a result of this, once again this government could blow up the dual occupancy market. There is a need for dual occupancies in Canberra. There is a need but it has got to be done properly because we saw, as we read in submissions and as we heard through witness statements, this is a very controversial part of planning policy and we have to get it right. But as a result of variation 343 we may well see the dual occupancy policy become further politicised, become even more controversial. We have to do dual occupancy planning properly. It cannot be by throwing darts at a map of Canberra.

There is a need and there are many appropriate blocks for dual occupancy development here in Canberra. But they cannot be chosen by throwing darts at a map. They have got to be done properly. For example, I think a good place to start would be large corner blocks where you could have separate entries or separate frontage. That would be a good place to start, I would think, but let us have a genuine discussion about how to do this.

Ms Fitzharris just said that we are now starting a conversation about dual occupancies in Canberra. It is a funny place to start after a decision has been made. This is the typical way that this government consults. It makes a decision, then reverse engineers and tries to rationalise it afterwards. I call on the government to put this variation on hold and to start a genuine debate, a genuine discussion about how to best achieve higher density on the right blocks in the right locations, because throwing darts at a map of Canberra is not the way to do it.

Finally, regarding the scheme more generally I do have concerns as to how it is going to be implemented. I think it is extremely unfortunate that many people will not be able to afford to return to their block. The government is patting itself on the back regarding land rent being an option for Mr Fluffy owners. However, I think it is extremely sad, extremely sad, that for some people in Canberra who owned their own house and land, the only option to stay on their own block is to rent it off the government.

They formerly owned their own house and land. The government is patting themselves on the back that people now have the option of being reduced to renting that land off the government. I think that is sad. I think that is extremely sad and I think the government should be very careful before commending itself on this option.

It was a useful inquiry. It was a good opportunity to hear from many witnesses about the many issues with this scheme. For the reasons I outlined in this speech and for many others, I do not support draft variation 343.

DR BOURKE (Ginninderra) (10.30): I rise to speak to the report and, indeed, to support draft variation 343. The legacy of loose-fill asbestos is a difficult issue for our community and in particular the Mr Fluffy home owners, the residents and their families. I am particularly keen to draw to the attention of the Assembly

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