Page 1722 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the ACT women’s plan, the ACT active ageing framework and the ACT climate strategy.
Adherence to the Territory Plan: this one is really important. Both of these agencies will be operating in planning and planning related areas. It is important that they are subservient to our actual planning authority, ACTPLA. There was a story in today’s Canberra Times about the Auditor-General looking at the $25 million worth of land that LDA has purchased to the west of Canberra. The Greens have been asking questions about this for some time. It is clearly, on the basis of what the annual reports said, outside of where ACTPLA is going. We want to make sure that the new agencies operate under the planning authority rather than as a parallel subsidiary planning authority.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism and Major Events) (4.27): The Labor Party will support these amendments. The bill as proposed contemplates the government setting the course to be followed by the CRA through the statement of expectations. The specification and achievement of social, environmental and economic targets is clearly contemplated in the bill.
Ms Le Couteur’s additional amendments assist in clarifying and reinforcing the government’s commitment to ensuring that the entities created by this bill have an active and clear responsibility to implement the government’s affordable housing and environmental sustainability agendas, as well as broader whole-of-government strategies. I will pick up on one pet hate; that is, “ageing” should be spelt appropriately. It is not “aging”; it is “ageing”.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.28): The Canberra Liberals do not support “aging” in place. But we also do not support amendment No 3. The Canberra Liberals will shortly be moving that the question be divided. We will be supporting amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5 but not No 3.
Ordered that the question be divided.
Amendment No 2 agreed to.
Amendment No 3 agreed to.
Amendment No 4 agreed to.
Amendment No 5 agreed to.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.29): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 1778]. This amendment is quite straightforward. It is as much an administrative issue as it is a policy issue. In a nutshell, it is helping to ensure that there is better governance in regard to the exercise of the authority; in particular, the City Renewal Authority must comply with directions given under the relevant territory law. We by no means see this as controversial or significant, but it is an important one all the same.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video