Page 1684 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Overall, I think if we want to get our urban infill policy and levers right, what is probably next required is a review of exactly where RZ2 and RZ3 areas occur, to ensure that we are increasing density in just the right places to better align with transport corridors and distance to town centres. This would then need to go hand in hand with better differentiating between what can be built in those zones. At present there is not really sufficient difference in density between RZ2 and RZ3, meaning that there are probably quite a few areas which should have more dwellings built in them now rather than creating a situation whereby buildings will need to be redeveloped in 10 or15 years to meet future demand.
In conclusion, there are still improvements to be made to the territory plan, but, overall, I think this variation is a very solid step forward on the path to sustainability and better neighbourhoods. For Canberrans, these changes will mean new areas of our city are better designed, with attention given to issues such as solar orientation and sustainable transport. They will benefit people who are building or purchasing homes, as well as helping to minimise Canberra’s environmental footprint.
Too many of Canberra’s existing suburbs were built without consideration of modern design principles, making it harder to build energy efficient homes and provide public transport. The Canberra of the future has to be designed in a smart and sustainable way with an awareness of the challenges we face from our changing environment.
Accepting the variation with technical amendments to come is a much better outcome than rejecting the entire variation and starting over. I urge other members to support the variation and my amendment, as I believe the changes as a result of DV306 are a good start towards making Canberra a more sustainable city. I think we all acknowledge there are areas in the variation that warrant some further work, but, as I have stressed, the proposal I have put forward is a way through that enables us to harvest the benefits of work that have been done but gives us the scope and a commitment from the government to continue to make the improvements that various people and organisations in the community are suggesting that are needed. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
Mr Coe: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order, Mr Coe.
Mr Coe: Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the amendment that Mr Rattenbury has just moved and I ask for your ruling on whether you believe it adequately deals with the original motion which Mr Wall moved. This is a unique issue whereby if the Assembly does not deal with it then the draft variation is deemed to be invalid. Given that we have an amendment that seeks to omit all words, does that adequately deal with the proposal put forward by Mr Wall? I seek your ruling.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe, I have had some notice that this may become an issue, and I have sought some advice from the Clerk. You might have seen the sort of to-ing and fro-ing in the production of the minutes of proceedings. I have had some time to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video