Page 1510 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My understanding is that the design and siting application on blocks 6 to 9, section 22, Braddon, which was submitted on 15 January 1993, has now been withdrawn. It was not withdrawn because of the community pressure or the pressure put on the department to reassess what was going on in this situation but because the developers had been able to secure a further two blocks and are now reassessing how they are going to spread their development across more of Braddon. The problems are not resolved. The problems have simply taken a new turn.
It is inappropriate for the community to have to go through this process again. It is an unusual situation, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Australian Institute of Planners, the Institute of Architects, the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and residents associations all object to a specific development. It is not just individuals within those groups but motions carried at meetings of those groups that found huge difficulties with not only the proposals but also the methods by which those proposals have been executed.
Section 22, Braddon, has become a symbol of what is wrong with planning in the ACT. It is certainly a symbol of inner city development. It has aroused the fear that people in North Canberra have about their changing environment. Their community will be changed irrevocably to the sorts of communities that we find in the inner suburbs of cities like Adelaide and Brisbane. It is not what is wanted and it does not fit in with the goals and aspirations of the people of North Canberra. We do not want inner North Canberra turned into a latter-day Kingston. Kingston does fulfil its role. That role is limited within the development of medium density housing in the Kingston area. The impact on the shopping centre, the impact on the schools, the impact on the local community is obvious. Compare Kingston, for example, and the development impact on the schools and shopping centres, with what has happened in Braddon and Reid - areas of the same vintage, where there is a growing number of families. In those areas the communities are taking on a much more normal profile as far as the demography goes.
Section 22 is also the symbol of the relationship between developers and government. Peter Phillips, the chair of the board of ACTEW, is one of the developers. Peter Phillips worked as a staffer in the Hawke Ministry. His relationship with the department as a whole, his ability to move in government circles and to understand government processes, and his close relationship with Jeff Townsend and Paul Whalan, who also worked as staffers in the Hawke Ministry, can be clarified by visiting the drinking hole at Kingston on appropriate evenings. This development process does involve a span of government because it involves the Housing Trust as well. It involves not only the Housing Trust but also better cities money.
Development proposals must be above board. I am not suggesting that anything illegal has happened with reference to section 22, Braddon. What I am wondering, and I think what the community wonders, is: Should it have been illegal? The one thing that we want to avoid in Canberra is having any part of our community driven by the New South Wales concept of "mates". A lobbyist like Paul Whalan ensures that he understands the system and that he has a positive working relationship with not only members of government but also members within the bureaucracy. That is the system, and that is why people employ lobbyists. Conversely, however, departmental representatives have to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .