Page 470 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I said that my support for the draft variation would be predicated on the expectation that the independent economic analysis would conclude that it would be financially advantageous to the Government to develop North Watson as opposed to a similar sized greenfields development in Gungahlin. Madam Speaker, we know that the independent economic analysis has indicated that the Government can anticipate savings between $6m and $8.6m as a result of the North Watson development proceeding while concurrently development at Gungahlin is slowed. However, I believe, Madam Speaker, that sufficient doubt has been cast on the merits of the independent economic analysis by, in particular, Professor Max Neutze, to indicate to me that at this time the draft variation proposed for North Watson should not proceed.
I have no difficulty with my decision, as a member of the Planning Committee, to request that the independent economic analysis be undertaken. The work that has been completed has crystallised my thinking on the key issues involved in the consideration of the draft variation. However, at this time I am unable to support it, notwithstanding the comments I have already made about the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's report on North Watson. I, like my colleague Mr Moore, will be opposing the draft variation, and I will be supporting the motion of disallowance proposed this day by Mr Lamont.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.50): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed at Mr Moore's environmental irresponsibility. He delivered a report of his committee to this Assembly yesterday which was entirely responsible in the way he set out to care for the future of Canberra. I believe that he should have taken those same principles into this debate; but he has not, and one must ask about the motives behind this. On every ground this is environmentally sound and sensible. It is the best way to proceed. I indicated yesterday, briefly, that in any argument I had raised in support of the draft variation for North Watson I had maintained, first and foremost, that it should be supported because it is environmentally sensible to do so. Mr Moore now disputes that. Mr Moore would go out into his suburbs of North Canberra - he is very conscious of that constituency - and he would argue strongly against the Monash freeway.
This is a good deal for Watson, North Canberra and North Watson. This is a good deal, and I have had many expressions of that from that community. In the first instance, we have taken away the Monash freeway from the consideration. The extension of Stirling Avenue, which was to be a six-lane freeway, has been removed. The draft variation we put down confirmed that. Yet Mr Moore wants to keep to what we had.
Secondly, that area, under the draft variation, was proposed for caravan parks, motels and the like. It was never proposed that it would be open space - never, going back into the planning arrangements over a long period. That becomes clear. It was always going to be part of the urban environment. Now we have changed it. There is certainly some scope left for caravan parks, but we have provided for what will be a very high-quality residential development. I think that is of a higher order, and it ought to be pleasing. I would rather have that sort of neighbourhood adjacent to me than the other.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .