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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1247 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I think taking it back to the local level and letting local residents have a say at their own level is a very sensible approach, and I have no problem at all if we end up with different policies for different suburbs. If the residents of Reid never want to see a dual occupancy, fine; but I do think the residents of Aranda should be allowed to have a different policy. I think the local area planning policy approach does have that capacity to allow a variation to happen. I do not think there was ever going to be a huge rush on dual occupancies. The debate in 1993 just took off, out of all control. Of course the Banks process frightened everyone, but they were very tiny blocks and people did not expect that to happen. I think this approach and the debate that we have had subsequent to Lansdown have put the whole thing back into a much more practical framework. I do not think allowing dual occupancy to go ahead is going to scare the people of Canberra.

When we discussed this a few weeks back I did say to Mr Moore that I thought it was too early to be doing this. Not only are we looking at this issue but the Government is looking at, from memory, at least six reviews in relation to planning, planning decisions, planning legislation, red tape, process reviews, strategy reviews and whatnot. With all those balls still up in the air, with staff seeking new jobs, with senior appointments still to be made, with the whole process of planning and the approach to planning and land management in the ACT changing, I thought it was far too early to be going in and making this change in the context of all the other changes that are going to be made.

I think Mr Moore's Bill is a little too early in its consideration. I think the Minister's reaction to it has been very sensible and well considered and I particularly look forward to a far greater number of LAPACs being formed. I look forward to the debate on LAPACs once the review comes through because, in my opinion, they are too big to cover three suburbs. But I am just foreshadowing the input that I would like to have on that and for that issue to be discussed and looked at once the review of LAPACs happens. Once we get local area planning controls in and the people feel that they have a say at their very own level, they will feel quite comfortable about the process that we have in relation to dual occupancy.

The types of planning requirements that people have to go through already are very stringent. The discussion we had in our very own street about the dual occupancy that went in was very fierce. People have to run the gamut of emotions of their neighbours; they have to convince people that they are not going to ruin anything by putting in a dual occupancy. The expenses that people will be up for now for betterment, once that goes through, are quite high. There are already barriers that I think do not make it easy for people to randomly throw in a second unit anywhere at all. I think the changes that the Minister is proposing, foreshadowing that it be through the LAPACs, are excellent. We will not be supporting Mr Moore's Bill.

MR KAINE (11.12): Mr Speaker, I must say that I was rather surprised that Mr Moore brought this particular amendment forward, because it seems to me that the intent here runs against both social attitudes and what the community expects of our planning laws, on the one hand, and also is contrary to Mr Moore's public position in terms of redevelopment, on the other. It is a strange reaction to a problem.

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