Page 2483 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
importance of providing new services in Gungahlin, and the importance of addressing climate change. We must always have in mind the simplicity of the system to ensure that we are able to provide an overall planning framework that people understand, that people have a sense of ownership around the development of Canberra, and that we have in place a system that is broadly supported by all members of the Assembly.
By and large, a couple of minor quibbles aside, I think the legislation received broad support, which was very pleasing to see. In 2008 we will move ahead with the new territory plan—what I think will be a great step forward. Just to contrast the experience in the ACT with what occurs in other parts of the country, at Kevin Rudd’s housing affordability summit, I had the opportunity to hear a bit about some of the experiences in other jurisdictions.
Whilst not wanting to highlight the work of comrades at Leichhardt City Council, the fact that it takes nearly 180 days to get that council to approve of even a minor alteration is causing Frank Sartor, the minister in New South Wales, great frustration. Our system will exempt a large number of fairly minor additions to people’s homes. If people go through the code track and meet the requirements of the building codes there will be a fast-track approval process and we will be looking at 20-day, 30-day and 45-day turnaround periods for all our development applications.
I think that compares very favourably with what is occurring across the border in New South Wales and elsewhere in the country, so I think it is unfair to suggest that the ACT system is slow and cumbersome. We needed to address some issues, and we have through this legislation. The new system, which will provide the best planning system in Australia, is something that will be welcomed by all those involved in the property development sector. That certainly has been the case.
Useless development issues aside, there has been very broad support for the legislation. Again, I make no apologies for seeking to strike a balance through the legislation and, no, we did not support particular urgings from the property industry in relation to useless development. They advocated that strongly, forcefully and professionally. It was an interesting debate and I welcomed the opportunity to engage with them on those issues. But in the end I formed an opinion, made a decision and we have moved forward.
I welcome the opportunity to work with all the industry players and with the community in the development of the new territory plan. I welcome the involvement of Sue Halliday, the independent assessor, and the reference group with representatives from industry, the professions, the community and academia. Involving social planners as well is an important process. I am very pleased to hear that their work has been progressing very well. In November this year the new territory plan will go out for a further period of consultation and then we aim to have it in place in the first quarter of 2008.
I think it was sensible to take the time to have a further look at the new territory plan. I think it was a sensible, considered and moderate process. Again, I will aim to strike a balance between the two extreme positions that are put. In this instance I particularly note the policy void that has been formed by the recommendation in the dissenting report to abolish A10 zones. So the Liberal Party is proposing one of two things. It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .