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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3684 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

of all other possible proposals. It was not until quite a long time afterwards that I thought, "Hey, wait a minute. The proponents created this thing. Why hasn't PALM been the initiator of this master plan for the group centre?" As I said, these master plans were deliberately engineered to completely sideline the planning committee.

In more recent times the Jamison group centre master plan has appeared. Once again, there was absolutely no reference to our committee. Members of my electorate rang me and said, "Hey, Dave, why are they building an 11-storey block of units across the road from me? Why are they going to make a road from Bowman Street, behind the pool, across to Belconnen Way?" I said, "I am blowed if I know. I don't know what you are talking about." Then I found the master plan and there it is-an 11-storey building. Who was it drawn by? The developer. Not PALM.

I went to a couple of meetings in Jamison where someone-I think it was a landscape architect-obviously made a squillion dollars on the consultancy to fuss about the pot plants and the seats around the outside of the Jamison Centre; how to pretty up the walls; how to make it look like the footpaths are neater. But it was nothing to do with Jamison Centre because the Jamison Centre is owned by a private developer. All the government can do is pretty up the outside of it. What a farce that turned out to be. When I went to that meeting I thought it was a meeting for the Jamison Centre as a whole, but no, it was just to hear about this landscape architect's lovely drawings. Once again, the Jamison Centre master plan turned out to be something that came nowhere near our committee.

There was no master plan for the Aranda shopping centre. There was no master plan whatsoever. So the developer was able to plan, build and develop something totally out of sync with what anybody in the community would like to see. It is currently before the AAT, so I do not know what is going to happen there.

Mr Speaker, these three planning tools, draft variation 64, B11 and the entire master planning process, have been a disaster. But, looking back to the motion, I am not sure that the motion as it stands will do anything to improve the application of these three things. I am not sure that the minister should be given the go-ahead to sell these blocks of land without master plans.

At the moment I am a bit like Mr Kaine. I could vote either way. I look forward to the minister's argument about how he thinks he should be able to sell these blocks of land in my electorate, whether or not there will be master plans before the development, and whether or not the master plan for these areas will come before a planning committee of the next Assembly. I do not know.

I look forward to the minister's argument for not supporting this, and I look forward to Ms Tucker's closing speech to rebut whatever is said.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (8.52): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will commence by addressing some of the issues raised by Mr Rugendyke because it is important to put in context where the master plan stands. I have no difficulty at all with master plans going to the urban services committee. They can see them all if they want to. They have requested to see some, and they have looked at some in the past. If that is what they wish to do then that would be fine.

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