Page 1539 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am rather interested that Mr Lamont has been talking at some length about a strategy. If there is a strategy that the Labor Party has for confronting this issue, I am waiting with great interest for the Minister to put it on the table. The people out there, I am sure, are waiting with bated breath to hear it also. On what the Labor Party has said over the last few months on this issue, they have no strategy. They have blown with the wind. They have said what is expedient from day to day.
Only towards the end of last year did the Minister put on the table the draft Territory Plan, and it was greeted by the Government with great enthusiasm. They did not develop it; the Alliance Government did. But it was tabled by this Minister with great enthusiasm. That plan encompassed urban renewal and urban infill. But during the election campaign, because a few people got up and said, "We do not want urban infill in our neighbourhood", the Chief Minister withdrew from the Territory Plan all of the areas identified for urban infill - straight off the top of the head, with no debate, no discussion, no consideration of what other people's views were, no taking into account all of the work that had gone into developing the Territory Plan over a period of three years. Straight off the top of the head we throw out all of the concepts of urban infill in that Territory Plan.
The ink is hardly dry on the ballot-papers and suddenly the Labor Party discovers the concept of urban infill again - or urban renewal. We have heard different phrases. We have heard "urban infill"; we have heard "urban consolidation". Now we hear about "urban renewal". What is the difference? What do they mean when they talk about these things, and what is their strategy? Why do they not get on with developing the Territory Plan, which has been on the table now for months? I understand that there have been over 900 submissions to the Territory Planning Authority in connection with that, and they have been on the table for some months now. When is the Government going to tell us what they are going to do about them? Inherent in the draft Territory Plan is the concept of urban renewal, urban development, urban consolidation, urban infill - whatever you like to call it. But suddenly Mr Lamont comes along and redefines it. It is now urban consolidation - - -
Mr Lamont: No.
MR KAINE: Urban renewal; I am sorry. "Urban consolidation" is obviously passe, along with "urban infill" and the rest of the terms. Now we have "urban renewal". I would like to know what the Government's strategy is. I need go back to no more than two or three weeks ago, when the Chief Minister - again, not the Minister responsible - put out a lengthy statement that said, "We have asked the Commonwealth Government for $13m" - or some such sum - "because we are going to completely redevelop North Canberra", at a total cost, we are told, of $71m, $72m or $73m. Lord knows where the figure comes from.
When the Minister was asked only yesterday where the money is to come from, he said, "It is going to come from the private sector". I would submit that the Government has not asked the private sector one question about that. We do not even know, and I do not think the Government knows, what the constituent elements of the $72m to $73m program are. If the Government knows, why does it not put them on the table? What is included in this North Canberra urban renewal program, which I presume is what they now are going to call it? What are the boundaries of it? Where is development going to occur? Where is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .