Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 13 August 2015) . . Page.. 2895 ..
The development that is being promoted in variation 347 is similar in many cases to the facilities which elite universities within Australia and around the world are currently providing. With increased economic viability, the UC can begin to improve its facilities. The benefits of this are twofold: firstly, the improved facilities will provide new revenue streams for the university and contribute to the viability of UC as a whole; secondly, it will attract new students, staff and investment to the campus.
With the broadening of permitted uses at UC, DV 347 allows for a greater range of facilities to be located at the UC. These selected businesses will allow for the nexus between university research and practicality of industry to be realised. The relationship between industry and the university will allow for greater diversity in the courses that the university can provide. It will also enhance links between students and potential employers and knowledge-sharing arrangements which will benefit all parties. It means jobs for the territory.
The expansion of the University of Canberra will improve the vibrancy of the Belconnen town centre. It will also enhance the connections at the interface between the town centre and the university. The variation includes a number of controls to manage the growth of the university in this location while minimising potential impacts on the surrounding areas, particularly the Belconnen town centre.
The variation includes conservative limits for commercial and retail development on the site when considering the scale and potential staff, student and residential population expected on the site in the future. The finalisation of variation 347 will inform the current Belconnen town centre master planning process and ensure the interface between the two is improved and enhanced for the benefit of all. I am confident this will ensure the viability of the Belconnen town centre and other surrounding centres for the long term. It is a very important variation.
I will go to some of the comments Mr Coe made during his address on this motion. He said he was surprised that this came forward. That is astounding, because we spoke about it at lunchtime. He lodged two motions with the Clerk to do exactly the same thing, so I cannot see why he would be surprised when we had a conversation at lunchtime about it.
Let us talk about the conversation. Mr Coe gave one side of the conversation—that was that I advised him that we would suspend standing orders to bring the motion forward. What he did not tell us is that they were my closing remarks. The offer I made to him was to bring his motions forward and we would deal with them. But he did not want to. He said, “You have a choice. We’re not going to bring them forward. You have your choice.” I said, “Well, if that’s the case, if you won’t support leave for the minister to move the motions, we’ll have to suspend standing orders to bring them forward.”
Mr Coe talked about being tricky earlier on. Let us talk about tricky. He said we do not comply with our own Planning and Development Act. Of course, the P&D act calls for a disallowance motion to be lodged five days from the tabling. I lodged these DVs on Tuesday the 4th, I think it was. There has been quite a bit of time to lodge any