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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 437 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

this problem. Unused Commonwealth land should have reverted to the ACT. If it is not needed as part of the national capital, I would have thought that it is part of the assets of the ACT. Similarly, we find there is a capacity for a developer to seriously influence the market for commercial space in this town without us having any influence. I guess we are coming to terms with living with an ineffectual planning minister. I can imagine the fearful response as he marches boldly towards the Commonwealth and the NCA to take up the cudgels on behalf of the ACT and its planning.

I see this particular incident as compounding that problem, and it is a real problem. It is a problem that should be addressed. The minister should be coming in here and saying, "I've been up there and I've fixed it. These people have seen the error of their ways," or he should be saying, "They threw me out."

Mr Smyth: I was there on Monday.

MR QUINLAN: And how did you go?

Mr Smyth: We are going okay. You wait and see.

MR QUINLAN: I certainly hope you did, Mr Smyth, because there is lack of control over the growth of commercial space in this place. The very important point made by my colleague Mr Corbell about employment opportunities in Gungahlin in some sort of adherence to the Y plan or rejection thereof, one or the other, should be at the forefront of what is happening here. We, as a community, should be advised of what is intended and what is planned. As a result of your interjection I expect to hear very shortly in this place some positive result in relation to this crazy idea that the Commonwealth does not need car parks around London Circuit so they will flog them off for office blocks that are outside our control.

The revenue for that land, not just the stamp duty, should belong to the ACT. If it is not required for the Commonwealth, not required for the National Capital, then by definition it is ACT land. But this is ancillary to that; this is a case where there is a development out there that is outside our planning range and it will have significant impact on the rest of town. That, in this planned city, I think is intolerable. I am rather concerned about that. I am concerned to hear that that has been sold, and I am concerned to hear that CTEC, a government agency on government funding, would be acting to compound that situation.

I return to my original point. Yes, the papers associated with this should be subjected to openness and accountability, and I would like to see in those papers when I have a look at them the fact that CTEC took into account the interests of the ACT over and above just the pure decision of where they want to go. I fully support the motion, Mr Speaker.

MR BERRY (5.57): Mr Speaker, I have been shadowing the affairs of CTEC for some time now and I do not think I am being unkind to them when I say they have been close to controversy for most of that time. For example, I just offer up Floriade and the $1.5 million extra we are going to have to find for the V8 car race. Those sorts of issues have caused me to be watching the affairs of CTEC closely, as I said, for some time.

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