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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 890 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Let the process continue through to finality, let the minister examine it and let the appeal processes be conducted through to conclusion, and then, and only then, should this Assembly interfere in the planning process if the process that has been undertaken has been corrupted. I have seen no evidence so far that the process has been corrupted. Therefore, I see no reason for this Assembly to ask the minister to give a direction on anything.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.26): Mr Speaker, I rise again to speak to Ms Tucker's amendment. Ms Tucker suggested that I had made some mistake about public land. The point I was trying to make was that urban open space is land available to the broader community in a whole range of ways. Technically, the land is not public land under the land act, but it certainly is in the broader sense. I would challenge anyone to go out into the community and say, "It is urban open space, but it is not for you." Quite clearly, the very broad expectation of the Canberra community is that urban open space is land available to the broader community.

Mr Speaker, there are some other issues that I really need to draw to members' attention. The key one is the assertion by Ms Tucker that neighbourhood planning does not have anything to do with this site. Ms Tucker would be the first person to stand up in this place and say that the government needs to take a holistic look at how planning and development issues are managed in a neighbourhood. That is what neighbourhood planning is about, Ms Tucker. It is about taking a holistic view and looking at all the issues. This land immediately abuts an existing residential area. For that reason, it is entirely appropriate that it be considered in the broader planning context.

I find it extraordinary that Ms Tucker is asking the government to look at this site in isolation from the broader planning issues for that area of Canberra, but that is exactly what she is asking the government to do. Next time I hear criticism from Ms Tucker that I should be taking a broader look, I will just refer her to her support for this motion. You cannot have it both ways: either you take a broad strategic look at planning issues in the area or you do not. You cannot hive off bits here and there: either you do it as part of a broader planning exercise or you do not.

Let me highlight exactly why we need to do it as part of a broader planning exercise. In relation to the proposed draft variation which has been put forward by Mrs Dunne, the land is urban open space and any proposal to change the land use policy would automatically trigger a mandatory preliminary assessment under the land act. As it would be changing it from urban open space to another land use, it would automatically trigger a mandatory preliminary assessment under the land act.

It is the normal requirement that the people seeking the variation pay for the mandatory preliminary assessment; that is the standard process. I do not know whether the Swans have considered that, but that would be the standard process and it would be the process that the government would require in this case. Why would we trigger a mandatory preliminary assessment?

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