Page 3608 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: The rush, as you call it, Mr Moore, was a program outlined to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and this Assembly. What can I say? Mr Moore has spilt the water.
Mr Cornwell: He has gone to water again, has he?
MR LAMONT: I was not going to say that. That was too obvious a line. I would not say that. The procedure adopted by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee was outlined and publicly announced to this Assembly some time ago. The time at which variations would arrive was announced and put to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee. The committee on Friday, consistent with the terms of reference and resolution of appointment, could have said, "We will present the report to the Speaker for publication at 4 o'clock. If you wish to have a dissenting report, Ms Szuty, put it in by four".
We did not do that, because we did not think it was appropriate. So, we undertook to find the most appropriate method to ensure that the rights of Ms Szuty were taken account of. By unanimous decision of the committee, that is what we did. For anybody else, Mr Moore included, to stand up here and impute an improper motive to any member of the Planning Committee is an absolute outrage and a matter, Madam Speaker, that in my view, if persisted with, would warrant censure in this house.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.50): I am one of the four-fifths of the membership of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee who endorse these four proposals without any difficulty at all. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about them. They really break down into two different categories. The Harcourt Hill development and the West Belconnen development are both broadacre developments. The other two are suburban developments of different orders of magnitude. I will deal with them in those two different categories.
First of all, I think that the Harcourt Hill venture is a very significant one for Canberra. It will involve a great deal of expenditure here. It will generate a very large number of jobs, which is what we are looking for and what we need, and at the end of the day we will have a development which will be of great value to the Territory. It will be partly residential, but it will include recreational and tourism facilities that will continue to draw people to Canberra and to generate revenue for Canberra for many years to come. I support that one without reservation.
I supported the submission that came to us that areas B and C at West Belconnen be developed. Sadly, Madam Speaker, that is all we were asked to approve. I would have supported it without reservation had we been asked to approve the entire development, including areas A and D. I think it is a matter for some regret that the Government has arbitrarily withdrawn area A from further consideration. Area D, I must note, has not been withdrawn from further consideration. It remains an investigation area because it is occupied by CSIRO.
I believe that once building begins in areas B and C, as it soon will - and again it will bring jobs and it will provide houses perhaps more cheaply than they can be made available in other areas of Canberra - it will be very hard to switch it off. I think that the Government will have to reconsider area A for further residential development. It will not only provide jobs and provide land and houses more cheaply than would be the case in Gungahlin and elsewhere but also provide
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .