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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1076 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (7.39): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move two amendments together.

Leave granted.


(1) Omit colon and paragraphs (1) and (2).

(2) Paragraph (3), omit the words "these concerns", substitute the words "this issue".

I do not need to say too much. I think it has been said here tonight and this afternoon. Some people seem to think there is a smell to do with this move. The smell seems to be more over that side of the chamber. Until those proposing this motion find the rat, I will not be supporting a motion based on myth, gossip or rumour. Mr Stanhope is trying to interject. I cannot hear him. Next year, if things are different, the bar will be just as high for such motions then. I urge you to support my amendments, which bring us back to some sort of sense.

Amendments agreed to.

MS TUCKER (7.42): I would like to wrap up in response to some of the comments that have been made during the debate. First of all, I will respond to some of the points from Mr Smyth, who responded in part to the motion. He talked about consistency with the Territory Plan. He read out sections of the Territory Plan that he thought supported his case that it was okay for the National Capital Plan to take precedence. He said that it was appropriate to have commercial development if a community need was becoming apparent for that development in places other than town centres.

I am quite fascinated that Mr Smyth did not respond to the points I raised regarding the oversupply of commercial space and the fact that his government is supporting a variation of use from commercial to residential because of what they call "low demand" for high-tech-based commercial land use at Fern Hill. There appears to be quite a contradiction in the government's position.

Mr Humphries also said that the move was totally appropriate because it was in the National Capital Plan. As Mr Humphries probably knows, the National Capital Plan was changed after privatisation of the airport, probably at the request of the owners of the airport. The government can deny that if it is not true. This government is undermining its own Territory Plan. That is quite clear and has not been refuted by the government.

Another point made by Mr Smyth was that we need a healthy working environment that suits the operations of CTEC. I think I made it quite clear through the points I put in my speech that there is absolutely no way we can be convinced that the needs of CTEC's operations are being met by this location, principally through the point in my motion about access and public transport.

We were interested to hear Mr Humphries and Mr Rugendyke both say that most people drive cars and that therefore we should be accommodating them. Mr Rugendyke said that we do not need to always go to the lowest common denominator. That must be people

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