Page 70 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There will be some who will say that that is not necessarily the end of the argument. I have a great deal of sympathy with people in the community who have put arguments to us, but for my part I have to say that I can think of no further reason why the North Watson development should not go ahead. If the independent analysis indicates that it is an economically and financially feasible and viable thing to do, then there is no other argument because there was no argument advanced, essentially, that said that socially this was not something that should be done. It seemed to hinge on the economic and financial argument, and I would be prepared to accept the umpire's judgment on this - that is, I believe, Access Economics's judgment. I await with great interest that report being tabled, to see on which side they come down - either in support of the Government's position or in support of the community position. I think that the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure can look forward to more exercises like this one, because the community will be making sure that they do their job and do it properly.
MS SZUTY (9.14): Madam Speaker, of all the draft variations which the Planning Committee has considered over the last several months, the proposed draft variation for North Watson has given me most anxiety and consternation. This has been reflected in the committee's desire to take the unusual step of requesting an independent economic analysis to be tabled by the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning, Mr Wood, originally scheduled for Thursday of this week but now I believe to be tabled on Tuesday of next week. My support for the proposed draft variation is predicated on the expectation that the independent economic analysis will conclude that it would be financially advantageous to the Government to develop North Watson as opposed to a similar sized greenfields development in Gungahlin.
I think it is important for me to outline my reasons for requesting that an independent economic analysis be undertaken. Firstly, there is no doubt that the Watson Community Association, and in particular Ms Julie Smith, have done an enormous amount of work in addressing the financial and economic issues pertaining to this draft variation. Indeed, Mr Kaine has spoken very eloquently in this Assembly today on that point, and he also mentioned the very substantial contributions made by David Evans, Mark Dunstone and Di Nash, who is in the gallery this evening. It could be said that the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning have largely responded to the financial issues initially raised by the Watson Community Association. It certainly took members of the Planning Committee an extraordinary length of time to receive information about the economic viability of the proposed development. I recall the time that the committee was considering the 1993-94 capital works program. We requested financial details of aspects of works planned for North Watson from the ACT Planning Authority's Urban Renewal Unit and were informed that detailed costings were not yet available.
The Planning Committee has requested an independent economic analysis to compare the costings and assumptions made about the proposed development by both the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning and the Watson Community Association. My decision regarding my support or otherwise for the development is dependent on the outcome of this analysis. Should the outcome be favourable, demonstrating considerable economic advantage to the Government in proceeding with this proposed development, I will support the draft variation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .