Page 4536 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We also need to ensure that long-term planning is not jeopardised by the meeting of short-term goals and objectives, and by "long term" I prefer to think of the needs of future generations. It is my belief that the community wants a commitment that the Canberra community will not lose a site it sees as important and necessary. The community does not want Canberra to become the bits left over after the National Capital Planning Authority takes over all the prime real estate for its own purposes. Madam Speaker, there is a way through this maze. The ACT community, I believe, is asking for its ACT Government to ensure that its interests are protected and that its concerns are heard and listened to. The way through, Madam Speaker, is to establish publicly what rights and obligations Canberra has with regard to Acton Peninsula and to develop open and clear processes which will ultimately determine the future of the site.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.20): Madam Speaker, this matter of the future of the Acton Peninsula is one that we have discussed several times in this Assembly. Maybe at times we felt that we were getting closer to agreement, both within this house and with other agencies; but not more broadly, because there are so many views about Acton Peninsula within the community. Ms Szuty demonstrated that for you today. This is because the matter is really quite complicated. The involvement of two governments and the history of the site also mean that we have to try to reconcile a very wide range of views that have been expressed over a period.
We all know that the site is a very important one for the national area in Canberra. It is a highly significant site on the edge of Lake Burley Griffin. It is therefore appropriate for it to be a designated area in the National Capital Plan. I do not think anybody would dispute that. This means that the body with responsibility for planning policies and works approval for the area is the National Capital Planning Authority, and I think that that is the basis of the discussion that we have. They have the planning responsibility.
A further factor is that the land is Territory land. Most of the balance of the lake foreshores is national land, but at the time of self-government the site was a working Territory facility, the Royal Canberra Hospital. Because of this the land came to the ACT as a Territory asset. If the hospital had not been there and it had been, for example, open space, it is almost certain that the land would have been classified as national land. The decision in 1989 to close the Royal Canberra Hospital has generated an intense community debate about the future of the site. That debate has highlighted the diversity of views and the strength of people's feelings about the site. In particular, the former use as a hospital has left many local people with a strong emotional tie to the peninsula and a strong conviction that it should remain as the location of community health facilities. Members will be aware of the strong lobbying that has taken place on that basis.
For several years the National Capital Planning Authority has been working towards the preparation of a master plan for the site, and any future development of the site will need to be consistent with this master plan. Nevertheless, and I will say this often, what is finally built on that site is a matter for determination by the ACT. The NCPA approach has been based on the view that the site is very significant and demands the highest quality development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .