Page 1008 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a significant bite out of our commercial land release for this financial year and we are struggling now to make it up. It is 2,000 square metres. It is two per cent of our proposed commercial land release for this financial year. We will not be able to make it up in this financial year. And that is the consequence that we pay.
But I have already made the request that the land be withdrawn from sale. I have already asked for a master planning exercise to commence. But I have asked my officials to assist me and provide guidance to me on what we can do to ensure that we do not confront this situation again. But I cannot embrace a policy position or a scenario which requires that every piece of land which we sell through the commercial or the industrial supply stream be consulted on before it is sold. That would be simply unreasonable.
The fine line, I guess the policy response that we need to provide, is to identify perhaps those infill sites, to differentiate. It would not be reasonable for me to expect of the LDA or officials that we have a public consultation process on a piece of industrial land in the middle of Mitchell, Fyshwick or Hume. That is not reasonable. And it would not be responsible to consult. I guess what I am saying is that in a case-specific sense I do not disagree with you on this but I could not accept a policy position that allows us to identify those sites where we do need obviously to consult, to embrace or to engage with the community as against those where there is nothing to be gained.
In relation to a commercial site located, I think, in the city, we should note that; we should not suggest that there be a double consultation on every commercial site that we identify or that there be a double consultation on every piece of industrial land. There are 100,000 square metres of industrial land identified for sale in Hume, in Fyshwick and in Mitchell and I do not propose that we consult on the sale or the implications of the sale of a block of land in the middle of Mitchell. But I do accept that, for cases such as this, there does need to be an adjustment to our accepted, historic approach to the notification and the engagement pre sale with commitments to a process such as a master planning which allows that degree of consultation and then the sale.
But we do need to understand that then it starts off again. When the development application is lodged, there is a statutory consultation process. We cannot keep consulting all the time on issues that, as Mrs Dunne has identified, are relevant to economic growth and activity. It will just tie us in knots that will cause us economic pain to a point that would not be acceptable.
Having said that, the government will accept the motion. I think it is not fair to say there was no consultation but I cannot at this stage quibble that there was an appropriate consultation. There was some consultation. There were traffic studies; there were some discussions. I do not believe that they met the needs of the Hawker community so I am happy to accept the motion.
I might just make the point simply that I do not believe it is humanly possible for us to deliver a master planning study for Hawker before August 2009. It simply cannot be done. Or it could be but we would have to drop every other master plan that is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .