Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 November 2021) . . Page.. 3489 ..

Molonglo Valley major commercial centre. The report suggested two methods of proceeding: an estate development plan or going to a full concept plan that would require a Territory Plan variation and would delay any land release for 18 months. In last month’s budget it was revealed that the government had decided to go with a full concept plan and a Territory Plan variation, and blamed the community for saying that they wanted more consultation when in fact the consultation can occur as an estate plan is developed. Minister, why was this slower option chosen?

MR GENTLEMAN: I thank Mr Hanson for his question. The Molonglo Valley is an important piece of planning into the future, and we want to make sure that all of the consultation can take place in advance of that planning rolling out, especially for the estate development plan. The government is developing a draft concept plan and I look forward to tabling that draft concept plan.

The EPSDD is working towards incorporating the concept plan through technical amendment. I recently met with representatives from the Molonglo Valley community council. While they were quite up-front about how disappointed they were about some parts of the delay, they were very keen to be involved in the planning into the future. Of course, if we hear from the community that they would rather go through a full Territory Plan variation process, then that is something the government will consider, but at this stage we are working towards the technical amendment.

MR HANSON: Minister, given your election commitment to fast-track the commercial centre, why have you gone back on your word to the Molonglo Valley?

MR GENTLEMAN: That is not the case. We are consulting with the Molonglo Valley residents group. We started conversations with them. Most recently, the EPSDD are working with them on the technical amendment.

MRS JONES: Minister, now that this consultant’s report is public and you have been shown up for unfairly blaming the community, will you use an EDP instead of the technical amendment option and make the land release faster, as promised last year?

MR GENTLEMAN: I have not blamed the community at all. I have explained quite clearly how we are consulting with the community. We want their input as we make these changes. They have told us that they want to be involved. That is why we are going through the process.

Light rail—vehicle fleet

MR PARTON: My question is to the Minister for Transport and City Services. The cracking issue in the CAF Urbos trams in New South Wales was only discovered after the floor and a layer of noise prevention coating was removed in one of the carriages. You indicated in an email to my office on the same afternoon that it was announced that Sydney’s L1 line would be out of service for 18 months that there were no issues with the LRVs in Canberra. But, Minister, how could you possibly know that given the work required to identify these cracks and given the work that is required? Has Canberra Metro removed the floor and the protective coating of one of the carriages to ensure that there are no cracks, or are you blindly making an assertion?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video