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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4087 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

But, first, let us have a look at who are the objectors in this process. For me, largely, they fit into three groups. The first one is the community groups. Generally, I think, in the vast majority of cases, they are genuinely concerned about the size and scale of this particular project. Personally, I think it was well worth listening to them. They did want a supermarket, and that is very important to record.

The second is the business groups. In fact, the second and third groups fit into what I call the hypocrisy groups. The business group in Manuka, I think, is the most hypocritical business group that I have ever come across. We hear these people again and again, as I have heard for the last eight or nine years in the Assembly, saying, "Get rid of red tape. Let us do our development. There is too much regulation, too much control, over what we do". That is until it does not suit their exact interest, and then they are saying, "We need more regulation. Do not let it go ahead. Put on more control". They use every possible tool they have to prevent a development because it might affect their own personal interests. When they are calling for the reduction of red tape, they are never interested in the fact that it might affect the interests of the community as a whole. They are never interested in the fact that it might affect other businesses, until it suits them. I have seen more hypocrisy from that group than I have seen from any other set of business groups over the last eight or nine years that I have been in this Assembly. That was the second group I wanted to deal with.

In the third group I want to deal with, there is a particular person, a former head of the National Capital Development Commission, Tony Powell, who stood up there and objected to this development on a whole series of purported planning issues. This man is the butcher of the Y plan. Let us not forget Tony Powell's role in Canberra. He is the one who, as commissioner of the NCDC, without any consultation - they did not have to deal with consultation processes in those days - ignored major crying out from the community and said, "No, we are going to allow a development in Civic. We are going to allow widespread development, including the full range of White Industries buildings, including a huge range of office blocks, as well as the Parkroyal. We do not care that that will mean that there will be no government departments in the town centres". What impact did that have on Canberra as a whole? We are still living with that impact. People in Gungahlin should be aware that one of the reasons why there is no office development in Gungahlin is that the butcher of the Y plan set down the process. So, for him to stand up here and object to this in the way he has is absolutely ludicrous, and it should be dismissed out of hand, because that is what it is worth.

To keep it in perspective, I also happen to think that Tony Powell has some very interesting ideas about the general impact of the character of Canberra, and they are ideas that are worth listening to. In this particular case, I do not know what has influenced him; but it is in great contrast to the way he operated with reference to the development of Canberra when he was the commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission. I am just appalled that so many people seem to have forgotten that. But that is the reality of it. In fact, it is thanks to Tony Powell that I wound up getting involved in planning issues and that I am here in this Assembly. It was because of his approach, because of his being the butcher of the Y plan.

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