Page 3410 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The standing committee’s report into draft variation 308 has been circulated. But I note, of course, that this Assembly has resolved that some other procedural matters in relation to that report need to be addressed. Draft variation 308, however, is consistent with the current strategies and planning guidelines for our city. The site adjoins the commercial heart of Canberra. It includes former public housing accommodation that is in desperate need of rejuvenation.
The broad direction of this draft variation will see a tired part of the city redeveloped and modernised. It will provide people with a choice of housing products and the opportunity to live close to the city centre. Bringing more residents into the city centre is entirely consistent with the strategic planning objectives of the government. It will mean that people can live close to services, facilities and recreational opportunities, and it will create investment across a range of retail, dining, recreational and business activities to support the city’s ongoing viability, development and rejuvenation.
Redevelopment of land in close proximity to the city is consistent with our overarching planning directions. It will deliver real benefits for the city centre. Again, I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Party, the party that claims to be concerned about Canberra being closed for business, is opposing this draft variation. It is just extraordinary. They say one thing, but they do another.
Mr Coe in his motion also talks about review of the territory plan. In case Mr Coe had not noticed, the government has already agreed to review the territory plan to ensure that it is consistent with our overarching strategy to achieve reductions in the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. This commitment for a restructured territory plan commenced with the return of the government last year. We will undertake a detailed review of the plan to ensure that it meets the objectives of our greenhouse gas reduction strategy and legislation.
The challenges faced by a modern city are well known. As a responsive and responsible government, we are taking action through our planning system and planning activities to respond to the challenges of a growing city and a growing community. We do not take the pessimistic view of those opposite and nor do we take the contradictory and hypocritical positions that we have seen from those opposite.
We have a planning and development system for a reason—to test, mitigate and manage often conflicting and contested perspectives on how developments should occur in our city. We should let that system do its work—unlike those opposite who sought to override it this morning and to stop development, the same development that they say they want to welcome into our city.
The planning system needs to be allowed to do its job and the government will do its job of establishing, reinforcing and implementing the strategic planning framework needed to guide growth for our city as we enter our second century.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have circulated an amendment to Mr Coe’s motion. I now move that amendment circulated in my name. I move:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video