Page 2060 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Or there is the ill-conceived Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill, which was the bill to give the Katy Gallagher government the power to build anything anywhere if they simply called it a special precinct. It was a bill that every single witness and every single submission slammed, yet the now Minister for Planning, Mr Gentleman, gave the green light when he was the chair of the planning committee. And then it is likely he tipped off Minister Corbell about the private and confidential deliberations of the planning committee and brought into doubt the integrity of the Assembly’s committee system. This is the new planning minister. We have gone from Minister Corbell, twice removed as planning minister, to Mr Gentleman, one of only eight people in Canberra who thought the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill was a good idea.
Of course, there is the overall complexity of the territory plan. It is a document which is inaccessible. When architects cannot understand it, how is a family planning an extension or a neighbour keen to learn about their rights able to comprehend the document? It does not have to be this way. We should have a simplified territory plan that still gives adequate advice and protection. At present, all the power is in ACTPLA’s hands, because they are the only people who can understand the territory plan. And even then I have my doubts about whether ACTPLA staff are able to keep on top of the document.
Mr Assistant Speaker, I brought a copy of the territory plan with me today. As you can see by the 2,500 pages attached to this territory plan document, it really is an unworkable document. How can you possibly expect the community to be informed about their rights in the ACT planning system when you have a document as complex as that?
I commend Mr Doszpot for his work, representing his local electorate, his local community, and doing the things that all local members should be doing. I hope that the four members of cabinet who are also representative of Yarralumla will do their part in representing their community.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (11.02): It is important to note that during this debate all those who have spoken so far—possibly not Mr Coe—have agreed that the brickworks are in fact the Canberra brickworks. It is of interest to all the community that we emphasise that and be aware of that. As I said, most people have referred to that.
Of late, though, the commentary in the media, and indeed in Mr Doszpot’s first clause in his notice on the notice paper for this motion, refers to the Yarralumla brickworks. It does not assist in the message getting out there, as we proceed through the lengthy and thorough phases of continued referral and consultation that must of course proceed. We are in fact talking about the Canberra brickworks, and we welcome—in fact, desire to hear—commentary from the wider Canberra community on this matter.
I am pleased to see that in Minister Barr’s amendment, he takes care of this issue. Clearly he speaks about the Canberra brickworks throughout. If many people whose homes were built around that time look at their bricks, they will find stamped on their bricks the words “Canberra Brickworks.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video