Page 3469 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Moving to Molonglo valley, the Greens have been looking at developments in the Molonglo valley with interest to see how the government goes about what is touted as a sustainable development and to ensure that adequate biodiversity protections are included in the planning and development processes. The Greens have continued to push for improved environmental standards for new housing in Molonglo and are pleased to see that the home advice sustainability program continues to help homeowners and builders to incorporate sustainability measures as well is multi-unit developments needing to meet a mandatory seven-star energy efficiency rating. It is possible that the home advice sustainability program could be a model for future developments if it proves successful in Molonglo. We support the program and we will watch its results with interest. The Greens are particularly pleased to note that there will be 70 innovative sustainable houses as part of a compact sustainable living community in the Molonglo demonstration precinct.
Looking at Gungahlin, the Economic Development Directorate discussion in estimates in relation to biodiversity was very interesting. It seems that the directorate has been using a document called the Gungahlin strategic offsets package in negotiations with the commonwealth to identify where land development can occur and where there are issues. It is quite interesting to reflect on the relationship between LDA and ACTPLA in terms of working these things out, and I have been surprised to find how much the LDA appears to be the lead agency in this. The document that the LDA is using has not yet gone before the ACT government, even though it has been used by the directorate for referrals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the new suburbs of Kenny and Throsby. I would like to see this document made public, and I again draw the government’s attention to its alleged open government policy. There needs to be less picking and choosing of what documents will be released. In this instance the community needs to know what trade-offs are being made by the government as it goes about potentially developing areas of high-value biodiversity.
In its response to the estimates committee report, the government said the Gungahlin strategic offsets package has been overtaken by another document called GAMO. Its full name is Environment protection and biodiversity conservation in Gungahlin: strategic measures to avoid, mitigate and offset impacts of development. It has said that it will not release GAMO until it is released as part of the Gungahlin strategic assessment process under the commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
It is disappointing that this has not been released. I guess all I can say at this stage is that I hope it will be good and we do not find flaws later in the development decisions which are made from it and thus are also flawed. And I restate what I said before: I would like to see the government reconsider its decision and release GAMO for public consultation immediately. This would be consistent with the open government commitments that it has.
I would like to conclude with a commendation for much of the work of the directorate and its cooperative willingness in general to provide information and briefings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video