Page 1916 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007

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


While the government understands the community council’s desire for additional community facilities in Woden town centre, it is not in a position to make a commitment about specific provisions at this point in time. There are a number of territory controlled sites that provide future options for the development of such facilities. However, it would be pre-emptive to specifically reserve any of these sites for particular uses. The government is confident that the proposed territory plan policies in variation 259 can accommodate the proposed uses if and when required.

These responses to issues raised by the Woden Valley Community Council and the changes made to the final variation demonstrate clearly that the planning and land authority and the government have responded to community comment and to issues raised by the planning and environment committee of which Mr Seselja is a member, as I said before. Members in this place would appreciate that it will never be possible to fully satisfy every individual’s views about every specific issue—though don’t we all wish that we could do that?

The government believes that the consultation processes of this exercise have been comprehensive and that there is nothing to be gained by further delay. Not only was the variation the subject of consultation; so, too, were the Woden centre master plan changes. They have been made through both these processes, including making responses to the planning and environment committee’s report.

For this reason, the government does not propose to support the disallowance motion and looks forward to variation 259 commencing as soon as possible.

MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (11.15): I rise today as one of the members for Molonglo—a Liberal member. I am very concerned about the way in which the government has proceeded with this matter. The shadow planning minister, Mr Seselja, has outlined very carefully and succinctly the point that we are trying to make in supporting Dr Foskey’s motion today—that we need a vibrant, mixed use town centre but one with a balance of commercial, residential and community facilities. The planning minister would argue that that is all going to happen here. I will make some comments about that later.

Dr Foskey mentioned the words “respectful relationships”. During this process, the government sought advice from the Woden Valley Community Council, which the government asked to consult with the broader community. It would appear that the council has done a sterling, job—an absolutely sterling job. We should give all credit to the chair, David Menzel, and his team. Unfortunately, it seems that all this advice—on two, three or four pages—has all but been ignored. At every step, the council has always attempted to work with the government—and it is not just over this variation: it has been doing it for some six years. The council is to be commended for that and for their part in this whole process.

I think it is right that the community council should stand up, that Dr Foskey should raise this motion and that we as the opposition should stand to support the Woden community on this issue. We cannot simply sit back and see the government planning gurus and the minister ride roughshod over yet another community development


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