Page 4321 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
use of land. It makes a mockery of this system if the government can then say, “Well, actually, the best use of our blocks of land is different to the best use of other people’s blocks of land.” If unit titling on an 800 square metre block in the RZ1 area is okay, why is it not okay for the 800 square metre block next door? There is no planning rationale behind the government scheme. I realise these are desperate times; I simply hope the ACT government uses this as an opportunity to have a look at the entire planning system and whether it is working very well.
Further to this, will the government seek to exempt themselves from their own variation 306 rules regarding solar access? Last year the opposition said these rules were unworkable. We said they would bring about bad planning outcomes. We said it would have an impact on infill, redevelopments and extensions, and the government ignored us. I understand by recommendation 22 that the government are perhaps considering rolling back variation 306, as they might now realise that the variation 306 rules are completely unworkable and do not have the desired impact.
On 30 October this year we raised this issue in the Assembly and the government was noncommittal. Just this week we heard Mr Jerry Howard from the MBA, Mr Paul Powderly from the Property Institute and Mr Glen Dowse from the HIA all raise concerns about these planning rules, in particular variation 306. As I said earlier about unit titling, why should one block be subject to variation 306 but a government-owned block next door not be subject to 306?
There was also discussion in the inquiry about subdivisions. This has to be done very carefully and, of course, only when appropriate. I hope the RZ2 rules that were also brought in during variation 306 are rethought for all blocks and not just for government-owned blocks.
As I draw to the end of the speech, it is important to note that the cost of this scheme is significant, but it also puts into perspective the $1 billion cost of light rail. It puts into perspective the $80 million we are paying every year in interest repayments on the $1 billion we are spending on light rail. In addition to the operating costs, light rail is going to cost $100 million every year for 20 or 30 years. That is like doing this Mr Fluffy scheme every three or four years simply to get 500 more people to use public transport. We have to get our priorities right in this city.
I have raised these concerns and issues on behalf of people who have brought them to my attention. I believe all of them can be managed. They are not insurmountable, but they will require active and careful consideration to ensure this unfortunate situation is managed as well as it can be. My brief reflections are barely scratching the surface, but I hope they detail in part some of the complexities related to downstream issues associated with remediation.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.40): Going to more of the financial aspects of the bill, it is hard to work out what it truly means. Again I refer back to the words of the Treasurer––that it is probably not until the midyear update in February that we will actually be able to see what the effects are and in what particular years the full effect will be felt. Even then we might not know, simply because it will work from the timetable, the scheduling, which suburbs get done first and how quickly the tenders are in and are operating.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video