Page 3609 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
additional population to support and maintain the infrastructure that is in that area already. By that I mean shopping centres. Some of them are already experiencing some decline. If you want to see the end product of that, go and have a look at Hackett shopping centre. We do not want that happening to the shopping centres in West Belconnen.
I also mean schools. I know that this will raise hackles on people's necks; but some schools in that area were already identified as having declining populations, and ultimately even this Government would have had to confront the issue of whether those schools should stay open or not. This development, including area A, will guarantee in the foreseeable future that those schools will remain open, including the one at Higgins, which is one of those that have been under threat and I think will remain under threat into the future unless there is additional population there. Of course area A, which has been excised from the proposal by the Government, would provide a continuing school population for the Higgins school. So, I think it is a matter of regret that area A has been excised, and I think that in time even this Government will have to reconsider that matter.
Madam Speaker, the other two variations are interesting developments. As Mr Lamont noted, the matters of concern brought to the committee in connection with both of those developments by and large did not relate to the variation of the land use. They had to do with design and siting. That raised some interesting questions for the committee, because I do not believe that it is within the committee's terms of reference to deal with design and siting matters. Our role is to determine whether the Government's proposal to change the land use is a valid proposition. That is where our responsibility, in my view, ends. It is interesting that people come to us with their concerns about design and siting.
In fact, the point was made quite eloquently by one witness in connection with the Griffith site. He raised real questions about the process that is currently in place and about whether or not the community has adequate opportunity to comment on and to make an input to determining questions of design and siting. He also made some interesting points about the chronology of events. In one case a notification that the matter had been referred to the committee appeared in the media the day after the committee had in fact examined the matter. So, the community has raised concerns about the process, and I am quite sure that the Government, the Planning Authority and others involved will take up those concerns and perhaps we will see some changes in the process in the future, particularly as it relates to design and siting matters. I certainly hope so.
Madam Speaker, I support these variations without reservation, except in so far as area A of Belconnen is concerned. There is comment in this report that some members of the committee thought that that area should not have been withdrawn. I was one of them. I believe that quite strongly.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I have to comment on two points made by Ms Szuty in her dissenting report. The first is that she believes that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee has not had time to consider the concerns of people making submissions and to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the West Belconnen variation should proceed. Madam Speaker, if I had any questions in my mind about whether there was a reasonable doubt that these things had happened, I would not have supported these variations. I am just as concerned to see the public interest served as I am sure Ms Szuty is. I resent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .