Page 2502 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The difference in debate is over what area should be preserved in order to retain the integrity of the Tuggeranong Homestead to the best possible extent. Tuggeranong Homestead is very different from Lanyon, for example, where there is no infringement of suburbs on the site at all and preservation can be quite different. There is already a significant infringement of suburbia around the Tuggeranong Homestead site, and that issue was important in the committee's consideration.
I note not only the positive government response but also the point that the committee's report was unanimous. There was no dissenting view at all, and agreement from this number of members of the Assembly, the government response and the members of the committee indicates that we are approaching a point where a decision has been made about the heritage characteristics of that site. It will now be up to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee to consider all the other issues involved, and there are other issues.
I have heard members of the community say that there has been no consultation whatsoever. There comes a time when decisions need to be made, as Mr Wood has said on a number of occasions, and as far as the heritage aspects go the decision has been made. The Government's response to the committee's report indicates that that decision has been made. There is no going back on that. I am not going to change my mind, Mr Westende is not going to change his mind, I am sure, and the Government has now made its response. It is time to move on from there and look at the other issues as far as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee goes. Our community should be pleased that such an extensive process of very formal consultation has taken place over this development.
I think it also illustrates that members of this Assembly, particularly in committee, are prepared to look at all the issues, and to suggest that one group is totally pro-development and another group is totally anti-development is nonsense. It is politically convenient at times, and no doubt that political convenience will be used. But, as in most things in the committee system in this Assembly, matters are resolved on the issue and are dealt with appropriately. Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to welcome the government response to this report.
MS ELLIS (10.52): I want to make a couple of very brief comments, being a member of the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee that presented this report in the first place. I add that I also am a member of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, which will receive the variation from the Planning Authority down the track. I look forward, as a member of the PDI Committee, to the opportunity for more expansion on the work that has already been done on this matter by the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee.
I endorse the comments made by Mr Moore, particularly in relation to the community consultation process. On that subject, can I just note that, as a member of the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee, I had the opportunity to visit and go through the property at some length. I think a disadvantage within the community at large has been the lack of opportunity to do that, and I am very pleased to see that the Minister's
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .