Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2207 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There will be differences of opinion within this Assembly about our transport links from Gungahlin to Civic, but what we do about transport links is a fundamental and important part of what should be happening in the development of the town centre at Gungahlin. But that is not an issue for a Gungahlin Development Authority; it is a broader planning issue. The planning for the integration of this particular area with the rest of Canberra is critical.

Yet another example that I would like to talk about is the development of office space. If we are going to have office workers out there in Gungahlin, there is no point having a development authority build a whole series of offices and have nobody come to stay. What we need is a situation where the land management control and planning are set in such a way that we can restrict office space in some areas and encourage it in others. How does this fit in with the balance of what is still needed at Tuggeranong? These are broader planning issues that ought not effectively be handed over to the Gungahlin Development Authority. When it does not quite work, when the Gungahlin central area is not developed the way that it should be, what is the Government going to do - point to the Gungahlin Development Authority and say, "Well, they did not get it right."? No, we are not going to let you do that. This is part of the process.

I am going to oppose the Bill because I do not think we have established that it is the appropriate way to go. I believe the appropriate way to go is to have an adequate planning authority and an adequate lease management system within a community of 300,000. Having a separate authority of this size simply is not necessary. However, should the legislation pass in principle, I will be seeking to refer it to a committee, and I will ask members to look at that. I might add also that as of today, because it is within a very limited time, we have a number of amendments put up by Mr Wood and a number of amendments put up by Ms Tucker that I have had a chance just to have a very quick look at. Having had a quick look at them, I must say that I think they are very sensible. Their having been distributed this morning, it is just that; it is just a quick look. It seems to me that this unholy rush that we have now is not based on any huge necessity. The development of Gungahlin can still continue under the normal processes, the normal way that we have developed the rest of Canberra, while this issue is examined appropriately in the interim. There are some issues to be discussed in terms of these important principles that are being dealt with very lightly by the Assembly if we put them through today. I urge members to consider the reference of this Bill if it passes the in-principle stage. First of all, I urge you to reconsider your position and to vote against it.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services) (5.43), in reply: In closing the debate, I thank all members for their contributions. Can I start off with one area that I think Ms Tucker, Ms Follett and Mr Moore mentioned. It is about revenue. It is true that the authority will retain revenue, but whatever funds are not used in the development of Gungahlin will be returned to the Territory. Not only that, the Territory will eventually receive dividends from the operations of the authority. I should reply to the other matter that Mr Moore mentioned. No, Mr Moore, the authority will not be designing or building any schools; and there is nothing in the Bill to suggest this, by the way.

Mr Moore: Well, section 4 does allow you to do so, Minister.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .