ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2973..


Mr Smyth: That was the Labor government at the time. Tom Uren did it, but did not then hand the blocks over. They kept them.

MR QUINLAN: They said, "We will have those, because they might be needed by the Commonwealth." Now that they are not needed by the Commonwealth, they are bleeding-well selling them! This is our land-this is land which belongs to the territory.

The only matter I wished to point out was the totally inconsistent debate put forward by Mr Pratt-and not for the first time. I believe you ought to consider, deeply, the processes relating to the Aboriginal tent embassy. If there is any strength to be shown, it should be shown on the part of the federal government. I would have thought the greatest strength would have been a capacity to sit down to negotiate and conciliate.

MR SPEAKER: Discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.

Territory Plan-draft variation 200

Proposed withdrawal

Debate resumed.

MR SMYTH (4.08): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion for a number of reasons. First, the minister said this morning that DV200 will guide the spatial plan. I would have thought that you should do the spatial plan first and that it would then guide the detail. DV200 goes to the detail of what future development will and will not be allowed across the territory. If the decisions have already been made and the detail is already there in DV200, then why are we going through the farce of developing a spatial plan?

The government's approach to development has been somewhat ad hoc. We went to the election with the 5 per cent rule. We saw draft variation 196. When the stupidity of that approach was shown, that was dropped and suddenly we went to DV200. The most disturbing element of draft variation 200 is the elitist element in it. It will halve suburbs and set part against part, with them and us and those with rights and those without rights.

How is that being determined? It is being determined by the 200-metre rule. When you ask how the 200-metre rule was determined and came into effect, it seems that it was almost magical in that somebody cast a spell and suddenly there it was, the perfect figure.

Mr Corbell: Good planning principles.

MR SMYTH: "Good planning principles," the minister says. Two hundred metres is a good planning principle. That is really interesting. I asked for the maps that he made that determination upon, and initially they could not be given to me, because they did not exist. They did a map for Yarralumla which appeared in an newspaper advertisement. I think they did one for Weetangera also. It strikes me that they picked suburbs they knew would match their ideal.


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 toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT