Page 671 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The extensive consultation undertaken in the development of the new planning system is a testament to this government’s commitment to open and transparent consultative processes, particularly where significant reform is being considered. These processes have given the government an insight into the ACT community’s priorities for planning policies. We need to consider these priorities to ensure that our planning system and controls deliver innovative, sustainable and appropriate development for the ACT in years to come.
Mr Speaker, the territory plan has now been restructured to focus on national leadership in the development assessment system, and the ACT continues to be the first jurisdiction implementing such a leading practice model. There is an opportunity for these planning controls, which are designed for development of territory land, to be introduced to similar areas within land that is currently controlled by the National Capital Authority. In closing, I support this motion to approve the territory plan 2008.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.10), in reply: I thank colleagues for their support, often offered begrudgingly and with qualifications. Nevertheless, in politics that is the best you can hope for at times, I suppose, so thank you all for your support.
I would like to again pay tribute to the team at ACTPLA for a magnificent effort in guiding this process through. A change of minister halfway through the process no doubt added levels of complexity to the briefing process. Nonetheless, I think we have arrived, after an extensive period of consultation, with a very good new territory plan for the people of the ACT.
In response to a couple of the issues that were raised during the debate, Dr Foskey asked a series of specific questions around the policy neutrality and when that became a feature of the reform process. It was from day one. I would like to reassure Dr Foskey that the range of policy suggestions that have been put forward by community groups, individual Canberrans, developers, and the whole range of people and stakeholders who contributed to this process have been recorded and will be part of future policy considerations. All of the ideas that have been brought forward will continue to be considered by the government and by the Planning and Land Authority.
There has been throughout the consultation process detailed government responses to each of the issues and ideas that have been put forward, and those have been made available on the Planning and Land Authority’s website. I understand they will continue to be made available in terms of the most recent consultation so that people do receive feedback on the ideas they put forward. It is not always possible to adopt everyone’s ideas as part of a final policy position. It is often the case, in fact, that you receive conflicting views on these matters. I need to stress, though, that these issues will continue to be the subject of considerable public debate, I am sure, and that the policy ideas that have been put forward will continue to be considered by government as part of any future policy reviews.
In terms of Mrs Dunne’s comments, I think I need only draw the Assembly’s attention to the arrangements that were in place prior to the introduction of the garden city
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .