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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2479 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

transport route, can get onto a bus easily. They are able to access the services and facilities they need as they age, without needing to own a car. If they are unable to use a car, they are still able to access these services and facilities.

The aim of DV 200 is to focus redevelopment activity which meets the outcomes our city wants to achieve-outcomes of sustainability, high density, proximity to services and facilities and public transport-but, at the same time, preserving the amenity of our suburbs, streetscapes and the garden setting that so many Canberrans value and want to see retained.

In many respects, draft variation 200 is not yet in effect. It is yet to be looked at by the standing committee of the Assembly and is yet to be tabled in this place as a formal variation. The government is serious about the public consultation process in relation to this draft variation. It has extended by a month the period for which the draft variation is open to public comment, because of the interest shown by both industry, the community and individuals in our city.

Draft variation 200 is about restoring fairness now, giving greater certainty now and into the future for both residents and the development industry, and building a sustainable framework for our city. The recommendation of the Australian Council of National Trusts that these suburbs will no longer be endangered if this draft variation is passed is one this government welcomes. It is a reaffirmation of our commitment to protect Canberra as the garden city.

MRS DUNNE (4.51): Mr Deputy Speaker, I must have missed a point or two along the way, because I naively thought that planning, especially planning in the ACT under the Labor government, was about planning for people. However, I think people have been overlooked in all of this discussion.

You might note that, from time to time, I am fond of quoting Edmund Burke. I do so because of his clarity of thought. I think it was he who succinctly put what government is about. He said it is a contrivance of human wisdom, to provide for human wants.

When talking about human wants, what has the National Trust done, on this occasion? In many ways, the National Trust is a very estimable organisation, but its role in this issue of Canberra's so-called endangered garden suburbs has left me underwhelmed in the extreme.

Does the National Trust consider the social impacts of what it says and does? Does it ever consider the social impacts, or is it planning for buildings rather than people-in the same way as some people here would prefer to put plants before people? I do not think there is any evidence that they prefer to put people before buildings.

In its so-called report card, the trust hails draft variation 200 as a positive outcome. I will go back and reinforce what the minister has just said. A draft variation is just that-it is a draft. It is subject to a great deal of change and manipulation. We do not know what it will look like. If this is a positive outcome, I would hate to see a negative one. It is only a piece of paper at this stage. It has very little to recommend it, and there is very little to say that it will be like this in a year's time.

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