Page 4868 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These are the words of the task force. Even with the task force giving Mr Corbell most of what he wanted, the task force supports a legislative model. It did not make a definitive judgment but it said that, if you are going to go with a model, a legislative model is probably the way to go. Referring it to a committee is certainly not the way to go. That is going to achieve very little. The government’s response to this has been unfortunate.
The rejection of this bill is the culmination of the killing of the plans for City Hill. When presented with the opportunity to do something great for the future of Canberra, when presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Simon Corbell has responded by doing nothing. He has responded by referring it to a committee, no doubt a committee which will tell him what he wants to hear. In five years time, nothing will have been done, and a great opportunity will have been lost.
It is worth revisiting how the government came to its position, announced today through the Canberra Times, not only to oppose this legislation but also to do nothing on City Hill. This is the five-year non-plan. The NCA started this process through the release of the Griffin legacy last year. In terms of stimulating debate on the future of Canberra, the NCA played a positive and constructive role through the development of this plan.
At around the same time, the Chief Minister was calling on the private sector to put their money where their mouths are and contribute ideas for Canberra. Terry Snow responded to this challenge by preparing his living city plan. Simon Corbell got wind of this and rushed out his own plan prior to the launch of the living city plan, which essentially took lots of bits from the Griffin legacy.
What did Mr Corbell do when Mr Snow launched his plan? He attacked him. He attacked Terry Snow for daring to put forward a plan which was different to his own. There is someone, on their own initiative and using their own money, seeking to contribute to a debate about the future of our city centre. On radio at the time, Mr Corbell said it was inappropriate for people with a lot of money, influence and contacts to seek to unduly influence a planning process. I can only assume he meant that, by contributing their ideas, they were seeking to unduly influence a planning process. I do not see how he has come to that conclusion.
Of course there was a marked difference between the planning minister’s response at the time and the Chief Minister’s response. The Chief Minister welcomed the plan. Mr Corbell attacked Terry Snow for going out with it. That is where this started. That is how all of this started. Now we have come to this point of referring it to a committee, this point of rejecting a positive initiative, writing it off as if it is no good without putting any arguments as to why you are going to oppose it.
Mr Corbell’s press release of 11 May is interesting. In relation to the task force, it said that the planning minister directed the task force to provide advice on the delivery vehicle that is best suited to the planning and design outcomes. No recommendation, in the end, was made, and that is disappointing. Any discussion which was had or any view which was expressed by the committee backs our delivery vehicle. It backs the delivery vehicle that we have put up and that the government has rejected today and will be rejecting today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .