Page 4458 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the dot points states:
Exemptions applying to this form of development, in respect of: public notification; third party appeal objection (if existing regulations remain); and betterment, if subdivided under the Unit Title Act (and particularly if allowed under the Land Act), are expected to considerably add to the attractiveness of dual occupancy development.
As far as I can ascertain, no public submissions were sought by Masterplan Consultants. All I can say in relation to those comments is: How wrong this Government was in those expectations, if they have been reflected by Masterplan Consultants.
It is also interesting to note how quick this Government was to correct the errors they had caused. In fact, they corrected them on the day the Lansdown report was made public. Not only did they correct them; they also expanded upon them in the Government's response. I believe that that proves quite conclusively that the planning policies of this Follett Labor Government were flawed right from the start. Why else would you move to accept most of Lansdown, adding your own refinements, including returning dual occupancy block sizes to the old NCDC measure of 800 square metres, and abandoning the unworkable - and, might I suggest, uncountable - 50 : 50 policy.
The Liberal Party welcomes most of the Lansdown report recommendations and, indeed, most of the Government's response to it. We have always believed that the planning problems besetting this city could be solved simply, and I believe that Mr Lansdown has proved the correctness of this view. Most of the problems simply require what is perhaps a rare response in this political climate; essentially, a commonsense approach and some firm guidelines. Fortunately, Mr Lansdown is of the old school and therefore was prepared to provide such direction rather than cop out and suggest widespread counselling - the universal panacea of Labor governments - for residents, planners and developers alike.
I believe that Mr Lansdown's recommendations essentially are sensible and practical and I commend him, as did the Minister, for a very good report. However, it is not the Lansdown report we are really addressing; but, rather, the desperate effort of the Follett Labor Government to rescue some shred of credibility and respectability from their previous planning policy by the Government's response to the Lansdown report. Unquestionably, the ALP's planning policy has come close to destroying, in a greedy 12 months, what has taken almost 70 years to create. I refer to Canberra itself.
While I can accept that some people have little or no taste, I cannot accept that they would be totally blind to what they were doing to this city's residential and social amenity. Yet this was the action of the Follett Labor Government. They were prepared to allow the destruction of Canberra as we know it, perhaps because of their sense of social justice, also known as envy, which was prepared to destroy suburbs such as Yarralumla, Griffith, Turner, Braddon and Ainslie. There was another perhaps more grubby but understandable reason, and that was revenue; that is, betterment, stamp duties and increased rates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .