Page 4859 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005

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

influence both in terms of scale and the manner in which they are implemented. There have been some problems from an ACT government perspective on matters such as this in the past. The point about the Griffin legacy plans is that they would have a massive impact on the focus of business and activity in and around Civic. I think it is important that Canberra people have an opportunity to understand how these plans intersect and are invited to collaborate in the planning process.

These will be the most significant changes to Canberra’s city area planning for many years to come. Putting plans in place for the Civic central part of that area now, without giving everyone the chance to understand the wider implications, is poor planning and very poor community engagement. I do not see why we have to put everything off for five years. My feeling is that there is work that could be done in Civic now. It does need a group that has a stronger role than that of the Civic task force, but I think we could be spending some time with community consultation, putting some details into the broad scoping principles that the task force outlined in its report.

I do not think an authority as such is the right group to do that at this point in time. An authority is an action body and I am not quite sure that we are there yet, so in that context to set up an authority charged with delivering plans which are not yet clear and which have not yet been embraced by Canberra people is premature. But we do need a vehicle to get community and other visions for Civic put on the paper and included in the final outcome.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella—Leader of the Opposition) (5.05): It is worth looking at what is in the report. Part of me suspects that Mr Corbell has not read the report. Mr Corbell simply does not want to give up the control. We know that Mr Corbell gets his way in cabinet. We know that there are opportunities out there that cabinet has now lost.

The sad thing about this is that over the last couple of weeks we have been talking about the drunken sailors spending all their cash. It seems the drunken sailors have now left port; they have climbed down off the wharf; they are in the little longboat, heading back out to sea. The captain, Mr Stanhope, is asleep at the tiller. Mr Quinlan, the only person driving the government, is paddling on one side; so they are going around in a circle. Mr Corbell is sitting there, staring at the stars and dreaming about being in charge. That is what this is all about. This is about retaining control. This is about being in charge. “Do it my way or do not do it at all.”

Clearly, Mr Corbell has not read the report. The report does not say that there should be a development authority. The report, if you go to page 45, lists a set of principles about what is called the delivery vehicle. If one looks at the set of principles delivered one can only conclude, at the end, that they are talking about an independent statutory authority that will develop all of Civic. Let us read through them:

That the government:

a. apply the following principles in designing the delivery vehicle for progressing the development of the City Hill Precinct:

i. It should ensure a strong advocacy for the development of the City Hill precinct in accordance with the agreed planning and development principles;

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