Page 5735 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are a number of other specialised agreements and memoranda that have been signed over the past decade, reflecting the growing need for a closer and more coordinated working relationship between Canberra and the region of which it is the heart. Some, like the Queanbeyan water supply agreement, signed in 2008, formalise entitlements and expectations. Others, like the eastern regional transport task force, which I mentioned earlier, have involved a definite philosophical shift. They reflect a maturing of the ACT’s role as the service centre of a significant and geographically large region. These recent methods of interaction are not about us and them; they are about us together occupying a part of the nation that holds out great promise for all who inhabit it—promises that can be more easily fulfilled if we work together.
It is a plain fact that many of the daily decisions taken and the daily investments made, whether on this side of the border or on the other side of the border, will have implications that extend beyond the jurisdiction in which the decision is made. Keeping channels of communication open, and sharing information, is crucial. Later this week, for example, ACT government officials will consult surrounding councils on the ACT’s draft planning strategy. They are having that conversation because we all know from experience that, just as urban development across the border has implications for the ACT, development in the ACT also has potential implications for those who surround us. Maintaining an open and cordial dialogue with the region helps us understand the broader implications of the urban planning decisions we take.
Regional collaboration is becoming more important, not less, with the passage of time. Canberra’s role has evolved. We are still, and proudly, the nation’s capital, but more recently we have evolved as the capital city of our own region too: the economic and service heart of a region that is home to upwards of half a million people. Fulfilling this function requires us to lift our sights and look beyond our borders. That is exactly what this Labor government is doing.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.12): In a way this is an important issue. But, as is so often with some of these MPIs, it is also a very sad MPI. It is sad not for what it says but for what it hides. This MPI is a shallow matter being raised by a shallow government.
Of course we need collaboration between the ACT and New South Wales. Of course this collaboration will be important to the ACT. The problem the ACT faces is that this government has neglected this very important relationship for a very long time and an MPI is not going to affect that. Indeed the MPI, as Mr Quinlan was fond of saying, really is just a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Perhaps we need a short history for those that forget what happened 10 years ago. More than 10 years ago, under the leadership of the then Liberal Chief Minister Kate Carnell, there was a strongly developing relationship between the ACT and the New South Wales governments at the state level and at the local council level. We realised that the potential from this relationship was enormous. Some of the benefits have been seen in tourism, with collaboration on promotion and marketing activities.
But what happened with the advent of the Stanhope government in 2001? Much of that which had been achieved changed. Yes, there were lots of words from the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video