Page 1099 - Week 06 - Thursday, 27 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are some significant historical elements on the site, namely the powerhouse and the associated buildings. The current land use planning policies for the area reflect its existing uses for public utilities and transportation facilities. Under current town planning procedures any changes of use would involve variations to existing policies and would be subject to public consultation.
A large part of the area - namely, blocks 4 and 16 of section 8, the Government Publishing Service offices and the old sawmill site - has been gazetted as national land. The National Capital Planning Authority would, of course, be expected to have an interest in the development of this site or, indeed, any development on the lake foreshores.
I wish to refer this matter to the Assembly Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure because I am aware of the high level of interest that this site attracts, and I am aware that there have from time to time been various proposals to develop the area. I believe it is appropriate that the Assembly members draw together a view on the possible use of the site. I think that the Assembly committee should consult widely in its investigations into that matter.
I am aware also that Mr Jensen wishes to move an amendment to the motion, which would ask the Government to do the preliminary investigation and assessment and make a recommendation on the use of the site so that the Assembly committee could then comment in the light of the Government's work on the area. I am relaxed about that proposed amendment by Mr Jensen, but I think members should be aware that, in adopting that amendment, they will be postponing for some considerable time the work of the standing committee in looking at the Kingston foreshore area because I am afraid it is a fact that the Kingston foreshore is one of a number of important policy areas which we are calling upon our bureaucrats to address as a matter of urgency and that I have given priority in my area to the drafting of appropriate planning, environment and heritage legislation, and I intend to adhere to that priority.
So any work that would be done by the Government on the question of the Kingston foreshore site could be quite some little time away, but if it is the intention of Mr Jensen, in moving his amendment, that the committee consider the Kingston foreshore area in the light of the Government's recommendations, I take it that he accepts that there will be that delay.
MR JENSEN (4.16): I will not speak for too long on this matter. The Residents Rally supports the concept for which this motion provides. However, the reason that the amendment which I intend to move and which I hope will be circulated in my name shortly was suggested was to ensure that the Government does not fall into the habit of referring matters to standing committees before it has done some of its own homework in relation to this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .