Page 4259 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Report on Draft Variation to the Territory Plan - Symonston
Debate resumed.
MS SZUTY (9.31): I am not sure whether Mr Berry mentioned it, but I did provide a dissenting report in relation to this draft variation. It is probably worth drawing to Mr De Domenico's attention that, when you disagree with a decision of a committee, the idea is that you present a dissenting report. That is what I am doing in relation to this draft variation. I would like Assembly members to consider carefully the arguments I have raised in my dissenting report in relation to this draft variation. It was interesting to me that during question time this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition also raised the issue of the viability of the technology park.
I want to make it clear that I dissent from part (a) of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure in relation to this draft variation, that is, the part that endorses it. I support part (b), which states:
... in view of the potential significance of parts of the site for the conservation of the rare earless dragon, the committee requests the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning not to proceed to develop Stages 2 and 3 until this committee has been provided with a report on the results of the December-January 1994-95 environmental survey.
In relation to this draft variation, the papers released for public comment in 1994 state:
Variation to the Plan would permit development of a substantial portion of the site for an advanced technology manufacturing estate having approximately 25 sites ranging from 3000 square metres to 8000 square metres. The ultimate number of sites will be dependent on the outcome of the environmental survey to be undertaken during December-January 1994-95. It is anticipated that a minimum of nine sites are capable of being developed as they are outside the areas identified for further survey.
One of the major objections I have to the variation proceeding at this time is that we have no idea whether nine of the potential 25 sites are going to be viable in their own right in terms of the establishment of an advanced technology manufacturing estate. The thrust of my comments is that the committee reached a decision on this draft variation at too early a stage for all of the parameters relating to the draft variation to be taken into full and effective consideration.
I will make a number of other points in relation to the draft variation. We know that the ACT Government has committed $3m to the development of infrastructure for the site. The perceived demand has been identified by the Canberra Region Advanced Technology Manufacturing Association, and this was supported by a consultant's report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .