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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2907 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Now, the process, for instance, to conserve the yellow box/red gum woodlands concluded that 100 hectares of high-quality yellow box/red gum should be put aside, and they were put aside. It also said that other areas did not meet that need, and one of those areas was north Watson. I would refer to the former planning minister, Mr Wood, who started this process. He did the PA back in 1992 and the Labor Party's own process came to the same conclusions as the Liberal government's process came to: that north Watson, for instance, should not be saved. Are there significant trees there? Yes, there are, but is it a significant yellow box/red gum site or temperate grassy woodland site? No, it is not.

Their process came to the same conclusion as ours did but now, for political gains, they say, "Just so that we can have something to kick the government about, we will ignore all the processes, because it is convenient at the time." If the process decided that 100 hectares of the best land was worthy of inclusion in the reserve system, it will be. Because other sites did not make it, the process has not met the needs of others, and therefore is somehow flawed.

We can go on with the improvements that the government has made. We have streamlined planning approval processes by reducing processing times, application forms and fees; introduced pre-application meetings and case management for development applications and building applications; appointed technical officers in the Planning and Land Management shopfronts, to give better advice upfront; established the Commissioner for Land and Planning separate from PALM; and ensured that Canberrans now have the ability to renew residential and commercial leases at any time upon payment of the charge.

Mr Speaker, on 4 May I stated that high-quality design and sustainability are the overriding criteria that will now be used to assess development. We are reviewing part A of the Territory Plan in light of this so that, over the next 10 to 15 years, we will be applying the broad principles that will deliver the city that we all want-the livable city-not just for us, but for our grandkids. The revision of part A was well received by the community. Why? How do we know that? Because we spoke to them about it and the feedback has been very, very positive, as was the response to the reviews of the part B land use policies.

We are currently reviewing ACTCode and the new code will be released shortly. It will guarantee the future of the bush capital, something that the lack of policy from the Labor Party, and its acceptance of AMCORD in the early 90s, had damaged. Is that inaction on the part of a planning minister? I do not think so. The strategies and the consultation with the public go on, Mr Speaker: the Our City revitalisation of Civic, the Tuggeranong master plan and the Gungahlin lake foreshore master plan. We are currently planning the Belconnen town centre master plan. (Further extension of time granted.) We have done the Gungahlin structure plan as well. It does go on and on: the section master plan; 17 plans are now approved, 12 are in development, and 12 more are to come. This is a far cry from the disasters of the B1 with which the Labor Party left us.

It is not just development, it is development in the context of a city. Under the government's social capital policies, what we are seeing is cultural planning as well. Both Gungahlin and Belconnen now have developed cultural plans, and we are doing more work in Tuggeranong. We have an innovative project with the University

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