Page 731 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That was signed by Gary Scott. That was the sort of thing we were battling, that was the sort of thing that came out in court, but we had very little opportunity to appeal. So it was a great joy to us when, first of all, Professor Neutze's report came out and then later the report on the Canberra leasehold system.
What we need in our development system is certainty, accessibility and lack of costs. Last Thursday I verified this very thing at a meeting of the Architects Association and CARD, with Mr Bob Winnel, who has been my long time opponent. We said that the one thing that we do need is a suitable and sensible appeal system so that we can have this certainty, both from a citizen's point of view and from a developer's point of view. I hope that this Labor Government will be very forthright and quick in ensuring that such an appeal system is implemented.
DR KINLOCH (4.10): Mr Speaker, I again return to the Canberra Times article, written as I notice by Christine Salins, and I do congratulate her on the recent addition to her family. You will recall that extraordinary front page editorial, which stated:
If ever the citizens of the ACT needed proof of the need for self-government, the Minister for Territories, Clyde Holding gave it to us yesterday with his extraordinary decision to approve the redevelopment of the Canberra brickworks. On election eve he has made a decision on an issue that has given rise to differences of opinion in the ACT community. It shows an indefensible contempt for the people of the ACT and the candidates in the election.
We could have read that yesterday as well in the debate yesterday. The Rally is given to understand that at least one of the decisions made at that time was influenced by a foot-stamping display in the Minister's office by a local member of the Federal Parliament.
Let us refer to the issue of the destruction of a house in Barton, when all sides of the argument should have had an opportunity to put their case. I am very sorry about that house. The same thing should apply to the myriad of changes that we have had come across our desks, from both the Interim Territory Planning Authority and the National Capital Planning Authority. We now have before us these changes. I look through them and often feel rather baffled, but try to deal with them.
While the interim laws under which we operate allow for public consultation, as the process I have just mentioned clearly shows it is what follows after that process that is of some concern to residents and business. For example, some of these changes refer to specific matters relating to the location of service stations in the ACT, and there is an item, I think, in today's paper on that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .