Page 1283 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
best, this firm is now seeking to get out of this particular issue when it has, as my colleague Mr Moore said, taken the issue to the umpire and the umpire has disagreed with it.
So let me put it to the owners of the lease that there are other options that they have. They may not be what the company would like but, as my colleague Mr Moore said, it is not the system of leasehold land that has caused this problem but the fact that some of those who seek to develop and redevelop our city do not seem to understand or want to understand our system.
The Rally has never said that development should not go ahead. In fact, many other developments and redevelopment projects have gone ahead prior to this decision. The statement that it has a dampening effect on the economy is noted, but it is not necessarily the fault of the community of Canberra, but of the people who sought to have the decision to build office blocks on that site, in complete contravention to the metropolitan plan and the proposals for Civic at the expense of other developing areas in Canberra.
It behoves those who wish to participate in this industry to do so within the current rules, provided that appeals from both sides of the argument are not processed through the Supreme Court. The Rally has never suggested, and never will suggest, that the Supreme Court is an appropriate place for these sorts of appeals to be processed. That was one of the reasons why I stood in this place to move a motion seeking that the Government get on with the job of providing the people of Canberra and the developers of Canberra with the necessary planning legislation to enable these sorts of decisions to be taken away from the Supreme Court and put into the place where they belong.
Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate, however, that this issue of one particular site is being used as a scapegoat to suggest that development in Civic cannot go ahead and to say that it is not appropriate for other development to occur in Civic. So, Mr Speaker, what I am suggesting to you is that it is time, once again, for the Government to have some more vision and take off the blinkers that they have put before us in relation to the single issue items for section 19, for example, and look to the longer term.
It is not jobs in the short term that the building industry wants, Mr Speaker. I would suggest it is jobs in the long term over a longer period of time. It must be accepted and understood that the finishing of the construction of Parliament House was going to have a major effect on the building industry in this town. That was an acknowledged fact, and that is why the Rally has always sought to have appropriate development of a long-term nature.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .