Page 1208 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think this is absolutely vital. Again, I would have thought this sort of information would be included in the annual reports anyway, because this is really core business for the heritage unit. If they are not including this sort of information, again, it does suggest that the annual report is not as complete as it should be. So I do hope they take that recommendation on board and provide a much more complete report next time round.
On recommendations 9, 10 and 11 and the broader issues about consultation and Green Square in Kingston, I very much support 4.31 in the report; in particular, the second sentence:
The majority of Committee members expressed concern that part of the ACTPLA consultation could be regarded as sham consultation because the decision had already been made by TaMS.
This is true. This is absolutely true. What happened in the consultation was that the government asked questions about grass: “Did people want grass in Green Square?” The people overwhelmingly said they wanted to have grass in Green Square. Yet the government had no intention whatsoever, it seems, of actually doing anything about it. So often this is the case.
For a while the ACT government would not conduct any consultation whatsoever. They would not even talk with the community. Now, what seems to happen is that they have a bit of a facade. They pretend to have a conversation with the community and then do not actually follow it up, do not actually take action. It is not consultation if you simply listen to what people say and then do not take any of it on board. Consultation is actually a two-way street whereby you do amend your actions based on what you have heard. It is not always possible but in this situation it certainly would have been possible. It is very disappointing that the government did, in fact, have sham consultation, as stated in the report of the PPW and TAMS committee.
Recommendation 9 is:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Territory and Municipal Services and the ACT Planning and Land Authority coordinate their public consultation processes where an obvious cross over exists.
This seems to be obvious and, if this government claims to be big on making efficiencies in the bureaucracy, this is a very clear example where you could get an efficiency and, indeed, get a better outcome as well.
Recommendation 10 is:
The Committee recommends that, given that Green Square is, in effect, the backyard for many unit dwellers in Kingston, the ACT Government should maintain grass there.
I fully agree with this recommendation. I think, as Ms Le Couteur said, all parties in this Assembly are committed to increased density, especially from the Canberra Liberals’ perspective, on our major transport corridors and in major centres. If we are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video