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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1662 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

policy was not necessarily through a change under the Territory Plan but a change by means of the lease purpose clauses. I submit that that lawyer was speaking on behalf of the proponent in this case and the proponent in this case ought to be bound by the advice that the lawyer gave in relation to a development at Manuka. It is quite simple.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite plain that this centre has been allowed to run down as some sort of leverage for a redevelopment. The committee was not swayed by that. The committee was resolute in ensuring that a viable pool and fitness centre remained and was upgraded, but not through some back door method.

The other problem that has come to light in the discussion around these two variations was that of the group centre master planning process. It has been highlighted by my two colleagues that this is a problem that the committee has encountered. It appears that the group centre master planning process has been deliberately engineered to circumvent the Planning and Urban Services Committee. Hence, we see a master plan for Kippax generated some time ago, but not by PALM. Who do you suppose it was generated by? The proponent for the development at Kippax. So, of course they are going to generate a master plan that favours theirs and rules out any other counter proposal. It became quite clear during the committee process that master plans for group centres ought to be generated by PALM, with consultation in the community and also consultation with the Planning and Urban Services Committee.

These recommendations for these two draft variations, Nos 158 and 163, are a message that things need to be done better. I look forward to a resolution of the weaknesses that have been identified in this case. I am very pleased that once again this report was a unanimous report of the Planning and Urban Services Committee, and I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR KAINE (4.57): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

I seek leave to make a short statement justifying that motion.

Leave granted.

MR KAINE: Thank you, members. I know it is unusual for a motion of adjournment to be accompanied with a speech, but I think in this case it is important that I record my reasons for adjourning the debate. The motion before the house is that the report be noted. I suppose we could be excused for just leaving it at that and hoping that the problem will go away. I only saw this report a few minutes ago. I have tried to make sense of it. It is obviously very complex. Each of the members of the committee have made the point that the matter was very complex and that some interesting issues arose in connection with it.

I think everybody in this place needs to understand the background to this report and the import of what the report is saying before we just let it go, having simply noted it. I would like an opportunity to analyse this report in some depth and to fully understand the issues before I vote that the matter simply be noted. It is for that reason that I have

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