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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2741 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

Draft Variation 200 ignores the 'big picture' in Canberra. It has no vision and no link to, and some inconsistency with, other current planning layers, namely the Spatial Plan, the Neighbourhood Planning Processes, the Affordable Housing Task Force Recommendations ...

It says, "Logic is missing from the document,""It is a complex document, very poorly written,""The current form of the Draft Variation represents a major change from the May 2002 version."It says it is "based on a one-size-fits-all premise". These are not my words, but it is nice when you say things that it actually comes back to you. It resonates with people. The notion that draft variation 200 is a one-size-fits-all solution is resonant throughout everything we have seen.

By contrast, it says:

These are not my words; these are the words of the Canberra community. And throughout this process, the words of the Canberra community have been ignored. Draft variation 200 makes great changes to the way we manage our city. If we make great changes to the way we design and run our city, we must make sure we get it right. Future generations will judge us severely if we do not.

Through much of what has happened with draft variation 200 and in this committee's final report it has been contended that the sequencing, which is all-important, is wrong. The committee felt the draft variation did not fit in the right sequence. The community felt that in the mosaic of planning documents that were around, the draft variation was out of sync with the strategic direction. We all agree-in this place and, I think, in the community-that there is a need for a strategic plan that has broad agreement. The clear message that came through the consultation on draft variation 200 is that the strategic plan needs to come first.

Since draft variation 200 was reported on by this committee, we have all known-we are not dolts-what path the government are going down when looking at their spatial plan. The work they are doing is good and is commendable, and I do not think anyone in this place has any real problems with the thrust of that and where we think we will be going with the spatial plan.

In discussing this with the minister, and other people, I have said-and it has been borne out by people who are more expert on the subject of planning than I am-that draft variation 200 is the wrong solution at the wrong time. The minister, on his own admission, on a number of occasions has said that this will be a stopgap measure. He says this is something we will do now and, after we do the spatial plan, we will come back and re-do it.

Mr Speaker, this is not how we do territory planning in this place. The Territory Plan needs to be a document of some longevity, and this document, on the admission of its principal architect, is not a document with any longevity. In two or three years time,

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