Page 4708 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
incomprehensible. I think it needs to be rewritten in a way that is comprehensible to the majority of the public. It needs to be written in such a way that it has a comparison of the old and the new so that people can understand what is actually being changed.
It needs to be written with objectives, because you have all these rules and criteria. You do not even know what they are trying to achieve. I think this could be described as a failure of ACTPLA consultation. ACTPLA usually does better than this and I am really surprised and disappointed that these two very important variations have been so poorly dealt with.
What I am calling on the government to do is to divide the draft variations into two parts. One would be the solar access part and two, or maybe more than two, the rest of it. This, I understand, is quite possible. Neil Savery, who is the chief planning executive, was quoted in the Canberra Times on 14 October as saying that this was technically possible and I was very pleased to hear that.
The article in which he was quoted was a discussion about the reference groups. I should mention that because these variations are so complicated, the government has had to set up a reference group to try and work out what to do with it. The article was about this. One thing it did say was that everyone thought passive solar orientation and solar access was important, but clearly there was division about the best way of achieving it.
The Greens acknowledge that there is not unanimity as to how it will be achieved. But there is unanimity that it is very important. I am saying that once ACTPLA has divided the variation in half, it would then be referred to the Standing Committee on Planning, Public Works and Territory and Municipal Services immediately. I am suggesting that the variation would still follow the normal procedures.
There has been public consultation by ACTPLA; it would then go to the planning committee as it normally does for the planning committee’s consideration. This, I believe, is the way to do it. This would mean that we could have a result in 2011 because the referral could be done this year. My next point is that following consideration by ACTPLA’s reference point there could be further community consultation on the remaining parts of the draft variations 301 and 303. Given that they are so complicated, I think this is an appropriate way to go. The consultation on those two variations has been poor whatever way you look at it.
I have been informed that the Labor and Liberal parties are planning to adjourn debate on this. I would like to say how disappointed I am if this is going to be the case. Yesterday, we spent a lot of time debating greenhouse gas reductions. Whether we believe that we should be reducing by 40 per cent or 30 per cent, I think this Assembly is united that we should be reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The building sector, as I said, is a substantial contributor to our emissions. Passive solar design is a win-win. It saves money and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If we are not prepared to do the things which are win/win for greenhouse gas emissions, what are we as an Assembly? What is the government going to actually do to address greenhouse gas emissions if this is not something which we are all prepared to embrace and fast track?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video