Page 3582 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015

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

recommendation 2 of this report, which was agreed to by all members of the committee, regarding the need for the government to review the planning framework in order to facilitate the supply of a much broader range of housing types to meet community desires.

This is about ageing in place and the strong desire of so many people to be able to downsize, but to be able to stay in their own suburb and community when they grow old. I keep hearing this when I am out in the community. I heard the same thing said in the estimates committee and, as Ms Fitzharris has quite ably talked about, within this committee as well. I turn to paragraph 5.22 of our report to highlight some evidence from architect Alistair McCallum, whom I will quote:

I think when we look at our ageing population alone and their interest in downsizing and the tsunami of downsizers that are coming, they do not want to necessarily move away from their suburb. But there are no options. We are not providing people with choice. Apartments are one form of living. Single dwellings are another. There is a distinct lack of opportunity in the middle.

That is what this variation does bring about in very small part to our suburbs. What is it? It is less than one per cent of the territory, as I understand it, that is affected by this draft variation. That is why it is disappointing to hear what Mr Coe just had to say before. It is disappointing that he does not understand the need to develop a bespoke solution to manage this particularly difficult issue for our community, disappointing that he does not recall within our planning history that there already is a level of heterogeneity within our suburbs.

I would really call it simply opposition for opposition’s sake. He seems to want, on one hand, to support urban density. He is against the draft variation. He is confused about the desire for dual occupancies. He is saying on the one hand that nobody wants them and on the other hand that everybody wants them. He wants this to be an economically viable scheme to deal with the Mr Fluffy issues but he does not like the mechanisms chosen to deliver it. He wants to put things on hold and cause further trauma to families but he complains about the trauma that has happened to these poor families involved. He wants everything the same but he does not want everything the same. He wants to take over corner blocks.

Madam Speaker, Mr Coe is completely confused and inconsistent with his position, which is a very sad state for the Canberra Liberals. I support the draft variation, the additional comments made by Ms Fitzharris and me, and the recommendations. I recommend that the Assembly support the draft variation.

MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning, Minister for Roads and Parking, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Minister for Children and Young People and Minister for Ageing) (10.34): I thank the committee for its speedy work and consideration of the variation that I sent to it. I thank all of those who have provided submissions. Also, I would like to quote from the conclusion in the committee’s report, especially the very first paragraph:

The Committee acknowledges the unprecedented and extraordinary nature of the challenges of eradicating the Mr Fluffy legacy from Canberra homes. It

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