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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3683 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

standards? On the face of it that does not seem to be logical, and I think that is the problem that Ms Tucker seems to be addressing, by and large.

I would like the minister to explain to me why there is the necessity for the variation in the approach, depending on location, and just how many local shopping centres would benefit from the higher density that seems to be permitted? In what way does it make them more viable as opposed to making them less attractive? You put lots more people in there, but then the centre becomes unusable because there is not enough car parking space or the shopping facilities are not enhanced. You just put more people in there, and the shops are all on the verge of closure anyway because they have not got a large enough client base.

I would like to hear some comment from the minister. At the moment I think there is some logic to the position that Ms Tucker is putting in this motion. Unless the government can convince me that she is wrong, I think I am going to support her. I am not particularly comfortable with that position because I do not think I know enough about it.

MR RUGENDYKE (8.42): Like Mr Kaine, at the moment I am not sure which way to jump on this issue. I am not sure what Ms Tucker is attempting to fix. I am not sure why Giralang and Kaleen are specifically picked out here. From my point of view, what needs to be fixed about group centres and local centres is an appropriate application of existing measures. Draft variation 64 has a lot of apparent loopholes and anomalies, and it has been appallingly managed by the government.

It is a variation that, as we heard, was supported by all parties some time ago. The Planning and Urban Services Committee of this Assembly has taken a monitoring role over the application of variation 64. We have seen Latham shopping centre go through that process. We are seeing Aranda shopping centre go through that process. The loopholes and the anomalies have created enormous problems for both those shopping centres, and they are different problems.

Another tool that PALM has that causes me concern is the B11 draft variation, the fine print of which we now find is able to creep out into the suburbs. I do not recall that being mentioned by PALM in our inquiry on B11, which was thought to be applicable only to Northbourne Avenue and a couple of blocks either side, but we see it somehow being able to be used in Narrabundah.

The third tool that I think needs to be looked at is the master planning process. I admit that it has taken me about three years as a member of the Planning and Urban Services Committee to realise that the master planning process has been deliberately engineered to completely sideline the Planning and Urban Services Committee. I apologise to members because I failed to notice that in three years. I am embarrassed about that.

One of the first inquiries about group centres involved Kippax, and a master plan appeared there. At the time I had no idea who created it, what its purpose was, or what notice we take of it. As it turns out, this master plan for Kippax was created by a proponent of a particular development that effectively eliminated other proposals for the Kippax area, and that caused our committee an enormous amount of grief. This mysterious master plan was able to completely favour one proposal to the abandonment

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