Page 1513 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is still room for recommendations in terms of process within the Territory Plan and perhaps to make a recommendation for appropriate changes to legislation from an independent and appropriately qualified observer.
Mr Lamont: How do you know, Michael? How does he know?
MR MOORE: I have there the word "perhaps". There is a need to remove the smell associated with this development. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is also important to deal with the methods that have been used, particularly by the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, Jeff Townsend. One of the methods in dealing with this was to try to marginalise the people who are objecting. It is not a new method at all. I recall it being used by other people when I was president of the Reid Residents Association and chair of the City Residents Coalition.
He referred to the Dicksons, the people who were living next to this proposed development, as simply ratbags, and used various other terms. That is entirely inappropriate from his position of power. It is the action of a bully. It is an action that we have seen tried again and again. The same action was taken with Paul Smith when he objected to a breach of lease at Hume. After he had used the appropriate method to try to seek a change of purpose for his lease, somebody else simply breaches that lease. That matter is, at the moment, before the AAT. Similarly, with the Watson Residents Association, the Minister himself has attempted to marginalise the groups. This sort of bullying from positions of power is entirely inappropriate and does nothing to serve the best interests of the community as a whole.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the question really is, "What ought to be done now?". What ought to be done now is to call on the Minister to announce an inquiry, an inquiry to be conducted by somebody acceptable to the community who is seen to be well removed from the system of mates. I have recommended, in a letter to Mr Wood, Mr John Gilchrist. He was a principal planner with the National Capital Planning Authority whose master's degree thesis deals with the development of Canberra. He is now a consultant planner. In my letter to Bill Wood on 11 March 1993, which I tabled in this Assembly last week, I originally called for an inquiry and recommended Mr Gilchrist as being eminently suitable. I indicated at that stage, as I did in that letter, that I had never discussed the matter of section 22, Braddon, with Mr Gilchrist, and that remains the case.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appropriate that an inquiry be conducted which examines the difficulties encountered with the development of section 22, Braddon, with the aim of finding a way to avoid such problems in the future. It should assess how well these problems are addressed by the Territory Plan and proposed modifications to legislation. It should assess whether or not all potential developers in section 22, Braddon, had a level playing field and recommend how to deal with balancing developers' initiatives with the best interests of the community.
The inquiry should also assess whether the following are currently being adequately addressed in development proposals, using section 22, Braddon, as an example: Personal privacy; energy efficiency; solar access; open space; health and social impact; visual impact; transport and, particularly, the increased number of vehicles. It should consider the importance of section 22, Braddon, as a precedent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .