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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4309 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

dragging your competitors down. You should look at why they are succeeding when the people in Tuggeranong are not and try to work out whether there are ways of emulating their success. Learn from their success, Mr Hargreaves, and do not spend your time indulging in the politics of envy.

MS DUNDAS (8.21): I would like to thank Mr Hargreaves for bringing this motion to the attention of the Assembly today. The motion raises a number of continuing concerns about the behaviour of both the National Capital Authority and the federal government towards the ACT under self-government. One of the guiding principles behind the advent of self-government in 1989 was that the people of the ACT should have control over services and the future shape of their city, other than those functions that were directly related to being the seat of government and the capital city of Australia.

The motion moved by Mr Hargreaves draws our attention to the fact that these principles have not always been followed. I must say that I preferred Mr Hargreaves' original motion, which gave a more heartfelt opinion on the problem and better outlined the problems produced by the poor planning decisions of the NCA.

It is essential that planning decisions in Canberra be made in a coordinated and cohesive manner. We are faced with the additional difficulty of having many areas of Canberra under the jurisdictions of both the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan. This situation means that an additional level of cooperation is required to effectively manage planning controls in the ACT.

The overdevelopment of Brindabella Business Park at Canberra Airport is an example of what can go wrong. The National Capital Authority does not take account of the wider Territory Plan. It should not be part of the NCA's role to determine where large business centres should be located in Canberra. This type of decision needs to be controlled by the people of Canberra, with the requisite public participation in the open process, not just imposed on the people of Canberra by a federal agency.

The airport is not an ideal location for commercial office space. It is inconsistent with the design of Canberra, which is planned around a town centre model with hubs of commercial space surrounded by residential suburbs. The airport has been kept away from residential areas due to noise effects of aircraft, which means that going to commercial space at the Brindabella Business Park requires long travelling distances for commuters, putting additional pressures on our road networks and generating additional unnecessary greenhouse gases. We also know that our airport is not well served by public transport and is not part of our major public transport corridor, which puts further pressure on private car usage and reduces the use of more environmentally friendly options, such as buses.

The provision of commercial space at Canberra Airport prevents alternative opportunities for business development in areas far better suited to this function. In his original motion, Mr Hargreaves referred to the fact that this sort of development undermines the viability of developments such as the Fern Hill business park in my electorate of Ginninderra. This point is entirely correct. The development of an integrated business and education centre in the Bruce precinct is an important opportunity for the future employment of Canberrans and it should not be compromised by poor planning, either at a national or at a local level.

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