Page 4653 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
point that the consultation period that has been proposed is generous for this strategy, 11 weeks. That exceeds the requirements of the Chief Minister’s protocols in relation to community consultation periods.
I think it is also important to stress that this draft strategy is based upon an extensive community consultation process that has occurred over the last 18 months, which has involved a whole series of community workshops, community comment sessions, engagement on specific elements of the draft planning strategy. So it is not as though there has been no consultation to date. There has been 18 months of work and of engagement with the community throughout that time. And we are now providing 11 weeks for public comment.
I think if the Assembly wants to see this draft planning strategy finalised before next year’s election, it would be problematic to extend the consultation period beyond that which has been proposed. But obviously we keep these issues under review.
MS HUNTER: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Hunter.
MS HUNTER: Minister, how is the proposal to develop Kowen consistent with the government’s greenfield, infill, transport and legislated climate change targets?
MR CORBELL: It is interesting that it seems to be implicit in that question that the Greens are criticising the possibility of development at Kowen. Why don’t they criticise future development in Gungahlin or why don’t they criticise any future development in Molonglo? The fact is that a 50-50 split is a responsible course of action. We do need to see appropriate opportunities identified for future greenfields development. That is a form of housing for which there is market demand and we do need to make provision for it in our future land use planning strategy.
The issues in relation to Kowen specifically are that Kowen is identified as an area that needs further consideration because there are a range of technical limitations that would make it either difficult or potentially cost prohibitive for the territory to develop Kowen as a stand-alone urban development site. What the draft planning strategy says is that Kowen is more feasible for development if it is developed in conjunction with development across the border in New South Wales.
The reason for that is that it would provide for infrastructure and other services to be delivered from the New South Wales side of the border which are, from a technical perspective and therefore also from a cost perspective, a much more feasible option. So that is why Kowen is identified as an area that should be subject to further review in the draft planning strategy. I think that is a sensible and considered position.
Children and young people—care and protection
MR SMYTH: My question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, when the Vardon report was handed down, including damning indictments of child protection, the then crossbench member Kerrie Tucker said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video