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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3123 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

particular issue, I think we have to look at whether the benefits to a sectional part of the community - whether the people who live close by, who have an important interest, or whether members of the golf club, who also have a sectional interest - outweigh the cost to the community as a whole.

I think Mr Corbell has very neatly put the costs to the community as a whole, both in undermining the leasehold system and in undermining the way the Territory Plan works and the principles of the Territory Plan. I do not intend to repeat those principles, because I think he put them very eloquently. I find it very refreshing that Labor has come to this position. I think it is a fair shift from their position in previous Assemblies. For that, I congratulate Mr Corbell for his influence. I know that his influence on planning matters has been significant, both within the party and within the caucus.

It was very interesting to me to hear Mr Hird, the chair of the Urban Services Committee, saying that if we want growth and development we need flexibility and the capability for change. I could not believe my ears. When I started discussing such matters in 1985, developers always said to me what they wanted was certainty. That has always been the argument they have put, until apparently it is inconvenient and then they want to have reasonable flexibility. There is flexibility when you are working within the parameters of the Territory Plan - and there should be. I do not think anybody debates that.

When you seek to change the Territory Plan, it should be difficult, because that gives certainly to people who operate within the plan. That should be the important principle driving decisions in this chamber. We should be reluctant to change the Territory Plan unless we are comfortable that the change is consistent with the principles and that it is going to enhance not just the particular issue we are dealing with but the plan overall. That is how we will be sure that we can provide certainty for people who wish to develop the city in the way that it ought to be developed.

I have not heard anybody here objecting to the notion of development of the city. It should be developed. I heard Mr Corbell talking about residential development close to town centres and the city centre. Have we heard any objection to the residential development at the Waldorf? No. Have we heard any objections to residential development around the town centres? No, because people realise that that is consistent with what we would expect and with the principles of the Territory Plan.

It is not just a case of objecting for objecting's sake. It is a case of understanding what we are trying to achieve with having a plan. Otherwise, why bother with a plan? Why not just use the approach that was used at the Gold Coast for years? They probably have a plan now - I do not know. I have not looked at the situation there for some time. Mr Corbell shakes his head and says they do not. Let us not go down that path. We have a very different city.

Some people who come here do not understand it and think that is a bit weird because it is different from every other city. That is fine. I do not mind them thinking that. We know that we live in the nicest city in the world. That is the way I would put it.

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