Page 1545 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is proper that we go through those processes. If you think that we can click our fingers and solve all the considerable problems with the present infrastructure of Kingston, you have not attended to the issue. It is a very complex issue. There is immense infrastructure there that cannot quickly, overnight, be turned into development. That simply cannot be done. The Kingston foreshore is going to be a major area of Canberra in the future, and we are not going to foul it up by rushing.
The final point I want to make is in response to not a comment that Mr Kaine featured today but one he made in a media statement recently to the effect that we have reversed our policy on the investigation areas, the "pink bits" in the draft Territory Plan. I think he said that the building better cities proposal we sent to the Federal Government somehow reneges on our former commitments. Again, this points to the fact that Mr Kaine does not understand the situation. Those investigation areas were simply that - investigation areas. Of themselves, they never changed anything. They simply flagged to the community what might happen some time down the track.
Mr De Domenico: Oh!
MR WOOD: Go and do a bit of work on it, Mr De Domenico. They simply flagged to the community what might happen down the track. As a result of what the community all over Canberra told us, we said that those investigation areas would go back to what they were and what they are now; that is, the land use for those areas stayed as it was. I will read out the clear indication that I gave to the community at the time. We made it quite clear what the situation was. This is from our policy document:
In the light of the comments to date, Labor has concluded that the Investigation Areas in the Draft Plan (or so-called 'pink bits') should be deleted, returning these areas to their previous land use. Any future proposals for changes to the land use of any area will be subject to a detailed and specific proposal about the proposed new land use of particular sites. Such proposals will then be subject to the environmental impact and public consultation requirements for changes to the Plan.
We stated very clearly, very precisely, what the situation was and what might happen in the future. (Extension of time granted) Those investigation areas reverted to their former use, whatever that use was - and there was a whole variety of uses. We very clearly said that proposals that emerge will go through the usual process of draft variation and change. Is there anything in this that says that they are immutable? There is nothing. We have simply gone back. We took off the flagging of what might happen and said, "Okay, don't worry about that. It is back to the old system".
Mr Moore: "No longer flagged; we will just do them one at a time".
MR WOOD: Well, that is it. I wrote something like 7,000 letters to people, telling them that proposals can now emerge in the routine way. They can emerge; obviously some will emerge. There is nothing hidden here, and if you do not understand the planning system, Mr Kaine, if you do not understand the processes - it is quite clear that you do not - do not make foolish remarks. If there are areas in North Canberra flagged in the building better cities program,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .