ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard

Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 796..

MS TUCKER: Thank you. Mr Stefaniak did not address my motion, Mr Rugendyke did not, Mr Hird did not and Mr Smyth did so vaguely, but did not really address it. At the centre of this motion is our concern that a block of land which is going to be processed, sold and developed for residential purposes is very closely connected to the shopping centre blocks whose future has been disputed for a number of years, as we all know.

The Greens would be interested in having a local area plan approach to any development of this site. I find it quite fascinating that the urban services committee, after weighty consideration, has recommended that we just get on with it; it is sick of it and we should just get on with it. I am sorry, that is not a satisfactory response to issues of concern to the community. It has taken a long time and we can go into detail about why that has been the case, but it is hardly a credible response just to say, "We don't like; it doesn't look good. Let's just get on with it."

Basically, that is what was said by Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke in response to my motion. Basically, they are saying what they said in the urban services committee's report. But, as I said before, my motion is actually talking about block 3, which is up for auction. My motion is asking that this auction be postponed until we know what is going to be happening with the shops site. Mr Smyth started talking about how the land was on the land release program last year, as if that suddenly means that its auction is set in concrete; of course it is not. Certainly, the government has deferred other releases of land.

We are not saying that it should never be sold. We are saying that its sale should be deferred or postponed until we know what is the situation with the shopping area. It is interesting that Mr Smyth and other members said that these two sites are closely connected and that you cannot separate one from the other. That is exactly the point of my motion. Mr Smyth just said that the area has to be compatible. He is supporting my motion, then, because it has to be compatible.

Mr Smyth: No, it is in the lease conditions that it has to be compatible.

MR SMYTH: Mr Smyth says that that is not what he meant. Mr Smyth is saying, "Let us have this development on the small block. That will determine what happens to the shops." If it has to be compatible-

Mr Smyth: No, the small block must be compatible with the big block.

MS TUCKER: Oh, the small block has to be compatible with the big block! That is why he will be supporting my motion, because we do not know what is going to be on the big block. That is what we know and that is exactly the point of this motion, so we hope that we will get Mr Smyth's support for this motion. That is the critical point. I am glad that Mr Smyth has got it now; maybe members opposite will change their vote. That is the critical point that was not acknowledge by Mr Hird, by Mr Stefaniak, our Attorney-General, or by Mr Rugendyke.

I do not know where Mr Moore is. I am hoping that he will come in and seek leave to speak on this motion. I am not going to get support for this motion, but Mr Moore is supposed to care about planning. Mr Moore is the hero of strategic planning. We have had so many statements from Mr Moore, wherever he is, about how a strategic approach

Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT