Page 5575 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to what is there, and I am happy to provide briefings on the detail of it if you have not had the chance already. But I do know we have discussed it in annual report hearings and estimates and you were certainly aware that the department was developing such a model. I think it is a good model for Canberra. I think it embraces diversity in sport and recreation and should be supported. Just in closing, I seek leave to move two amendments circulated in my name.
Leave granted.
MR BARR: I move the amendments circulated in my name:
(1) Omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:
“(b) the Amendment will enable a significant change in density in the Gungahlin suburbs of Casey and Crace, subject to a development assessment process, by allowing ACTPLA to consider approving:
(i) 660 more dwellings in Casey; and
(ii) 600 more dwellings in Crace;”.
(2) Omit paragraphs (1)(c), (d) and (f).
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.34): I have no problems at all with some parts of this motion today because they are merely factual. However, I am concerned that this motion and the media campaign that has been run on this issue have over-inflated some of the concerns and spiced them up with incorrect statements rather than facts. Planning can be a complicated enough business as it is and I think it is unfortunate for the people of Canberra that the facts of this matter are being confused. I think this may be a classic case for the use of the term “never let the truth get in the way of a good story”.
Having said that, I understand where Mr Seselja is coming from on the issue of technical amendments. During my period here I have come across a number of technical amendments which people told me went beyond the scope of what should be allowed in a technical variation, as they contained policy changes. In fact I have even made submissions along those lines to ACTPLA on earlier technical amendments.
However, the more I looked into this issue and the legislation, I think it became clearer to me that a certain level of policy change is allowed within the technical amendments according to the Planning and Development Act. Mr Barr has spoken about this; so I will go through it in less detail again. The act clearly states what is allowed to be changed through technical amendments to the territory plan.
The area that seems to have caused most confusion over the past few years since the advent of this new legislation is code variations. I have often heard from various sources that technical amendments were meant to be policy neutral. However, what the act actually says is that a code variation should be consistent with the policy purpose and policy framework of the code. That is not quite the same as policy neutral.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video