Page 1581 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One of the longest ways to go, I fear, might be in relation to our legislated greenhouse gas targets. In 2010, as we all know, we passed legislation committing the ACT to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 per cent less than 1990 levels by 2020. As we all know, 31 per cent of our energy use is from the residential sector, 40 per cent from the commercial sector and 23 per cent from transport. All of these relate to planning. They are all issues that relate to sustainable planning. And we think very strongly that these issues need to be taken into account at the beginning of planning decisions and in all planning decisions.
I was very disappointed when the draft ACT planning strategy did not have any strong commitments, or any commitments, to the legislated 40 per cent greenhouse gas reduction target by 2020. Its strongest commitment was the 50 per cent infill target, which it did say will support other key ACT government policy outcomes, including the legislated greenhouse gas target for 2060. And that is true, but that is not the same as actually committing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Members may remember that last month, I tabled a bill which relates to making our planning system more sustainable, the Planning and Development (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets) Amendment Bill. I have put it out as an exposure draft, and I would very much welcome comments from members or anyone else, preferably by 20 April. If we are going to look at sustainable planning then one of the most important things we need to look at is our long-lived infrastructure, and from that point of view, I do commend Mr Seselja’s concentration on some of the bigger infrastructure projects in the ACT.
The planning strategy’s major topic, as I said, was a 50 per cent infill target. It is unfortunate that it is, in my opinion, the number one target that we should be aiming at from a sustainability point of view, because, after all, you can have this and have a more sustainable or a less sustainable Canberra. The two are not really related. The other problem, of course, is that it relates very closely to the existing target, which is not being met. In general the government does not own the land in existing areas. So changing development so that we have 50 per cent of our developments in existing areas is close to an aspirational goal for the government, and the government did not go through any levers that it was going to use to achieve this. Arguably, the government has made the task to achieve the 50 per cent infill harder by its revised arrangements for the lease variation charge.
We do support the idea of the lease variation charge but, as well as that, we believe that it is absolutely essential to implement the regulations which will allow rebates for dwellings in strategic locations or for highly energy efficient buildings. This is needed if we actually are to have meaningful infill and for infill to contribute to sustainability and greenhouse gas reductions.
There needs to be more emphasis on good design and appropriately sized housing. Canberra has the dubious honour of having the largest new houses in the world, but of course we do not have the largest families in the world. We have a lot of space per person, and this is not aiding sustainability in Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video