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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1747 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

We hope that the Assembly will back an honest and genuine review of land use for this area-not, as proposed, a Clayton's review that has a predetermined, fixed outcome. It is hardly honest and open when you determine what will occur before the process starts.

The government is concerned about these woodlands. We believe they are very important. We understand our responsibility. We take it seriously. We can point to the amount of land we have saved from development or in respect of which we have changed the type of development. I table for the information of members a small map showing the five hectares we have put into the park to make sure that valuable areas worthy of protection are protected. I hope that the Assembly sees fit to have a proper review of this land use, not a Clayton's review as the Labor Party wants to conduct. I present the following paper:

Watson-Aerial photograph produced by the ACT Land Information Centre, dated April 2001.

MR KAINE (3.35): This is another one of those interesting debates like the one we had this morning. Although the government does not agree with the motion originally put forward by Mr Corbell, it is interesting that they now agree that some review is necessary. It is interesting that the government would not be supporting that review had Mr Corbell not put on the table today a motion that raised the matter for debate. You have to ask why the government did not undertake to conduct this review without being prodded by the opposition on the matter?

This is quite a controversial piece of land, and has been for some years. It was a matter of some public concern in 1995 that residential accommodation was to be built on this piece of land. There was a wide-ranging public debate. I asked a question about this particular piece of ground less than a year ago, and the responsible minister could not answer it. The now Chief Minister took over the question. He did not answer my question. My specific question was: is this land now up for residential development? Mr Humphries said he would go away and get me an answer, by which I assumed he meant he would take the question on notice. Here we are today, 12 to 15 months later, and I have not had an answer to that question, either from Mr Humphries or from Mr Smyth.

It is not surprising that the people concerned about that piece of land because of its unique environmental characteristics and the fact that it is inherently valuable in its present state want the matter reviewed. Maybe Mr Corbell was approached by the same people who approached me recently, the very same people who in 1995 had to argue that the land should not be developed for residential purposes then. At that stage there was a proposal to put something like 1,600 residential units-I am not sure of the number-in the general area where this piece of land is located. There was a long debate, and the number of residential units to go into that general area was significantly reduced as a result of that debate.

Mr Humphries at the time said, "There will be no further residential development in this area in the foreseeable future." My question about a year ago was: has the foreseeable future expired? There was a proposal to put a street in adjacent to the Prime studio. My question was: is this street being put in to enable residential development? As I say, I still do not have an answer to that question. The locals who have an interest in this piece of

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