Page 1535 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mrs Dunne: On the point of order, I was not interjecting; I was having a conversation with Mr Hanson. But I do note that it may have been a little on the loud side.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: It was on the loud side and Mr Hanson was objecting quite loudly. Ms Le Couteur.
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for that support. I am not against this in principle. I just cannot see in practice how this is anything other than another way of saying we are going to stop these developments happening.
Mrs Jones: Well, stop them for five minutes.
MS LE COUTEUR: I know I should not answer interjections, but the reality is that if we are going to do an inquiry that makes sense, it is not for five minutes. To illustrate that statement, I refer members to a committee inquiry which happened in a previous Assembly that my colleague Mr Rattenbury was on. It dealt quite extensively with CFZ zones. It was around community land and clubs and there was a lot of discussion about it. It was about the future of clubs in the ACT. As they pointed out, a lot of clubs were looking for de-concessionalisation and putting in development applications. There were big issues with windfall profits and the loss of community facilities, halls, open spaces and sporting facilities, particularly in the inner north and inner south where development pressure is greatest, because these are facilities that are most valuable to the community as urban development intensifies.
One amendment, which may have been Mr Rattenbury’s—I do not think it was supported by all members—was that the government should identify any group centres across Canberra that do not currently have any community zoned land, consult with the community clubs in the area and then propose a variation of the Territory Plan to insert community zoned areas in centres that are currently without any.
One recommendation, which I am told was in fact agreed by all three parties, was that there be no net loss of land zoned in the ACT Territory Plan as CFZ and, in the case of a proposed rezoning of community land to another land use zone, an equivalent community land offset should be designated elsewhere, ensuring equitable spread of community facilities across the ACT.
The Greens’ position is that it would be a very worthy inquiry, but getting it done in a time frame which is relevant to the existing issues is impossible. There was already an inquiry in the last Assembly which went through quite a number of the community facility issues. I think it is regrettable that that was not better finalised. It would probably be very useful if the planning committee wished to consider its workload and perhaps decided that this potential inquiry has a higher priority than some other inquiries. I am concerned that in this instance Mr Hanson’s motivation is not so much about better consultation but ensuring that current public housing is stopped.
MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee) (11.29): I want to start my speech with a discussion about values. ACT Labor and our government will always believe in ensuring that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video