Page 227 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It goes on to say:
She was “shattered” … She felt tricked by the land rent changes after being assured early last year the rules wouldn't change … “But I just can’t face not going home,” she said. “It’s shattering. We’ve been moving towards going home. That’s the only thing that’s been getting us through.”
This is the reality of this policy. This policy is all about government revenue, which cannot be quantified because they have not done the work.
If the government were able to make a clear case as to how we are going to be financially better off, at least the community could understand the benefits to the community at large. But the government cannot. The government cannot say whether they are going to be better off or worse off as a result of this change. What we can say definitively is that neighbourhoods across Canberra are being torn apart, and indeed families are being torn apart. As Ms Pilkington said to the paper:
“But I just can’t face not going home,” she said. “It’s shattering. We’ve been moving towards going home. That’s the only thing that’s been getting us through.”
The emotional presentations to the planning committee were further evidence of just how tumultuous this policy is on the ground. The process surrounding variation 343 is frustrating. It is clear that the government had already made up its mind before consultation and the committee inquiry started. Not only that; despite pretty much having no witnesses in favour of furthering variation 343, the government, after the committee inquiry, took variation 343 even further from where it was at the time that the committee inquiry kicked off.
If this government were genuinely interested in the community’s opinion, they would have given serious consideration to the sensible suggestions by witnesses at the inquiry. Planning experts and people who will actually be affected by these changes considered the variation and made suggestions about ways to improve the planning outcomes and make it fairer for everyone. The government have ignored them all and arrogantly pressed on with the variation as they originally wanted.
The opposition is more than happy to have a discussion about dual occupancies in Canberra. I think there is a need for more dual occupancies in Canberra. But let us not do so by throwing darts at a map. Let us do so by having a properly informed discussion, let us do so by having properly informed community debate, and let us do so by getting the experts involved to tell us how we can best do this in Canberra.
Instead we have a shoddy approach from a government that simply do not care about the neighbourhoods they are meant to represent. This rezoning is unfair to former owners, to neighbours and to the community as a whole. It brings long-term uncertainty to the planning system, and may lead to inappropriate developments, but it definitely will lead to the breaking up of many communities and the feeling of belonging that Canberrans have. Once again the government have one rule for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video