Page 237 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second part of the committee's recommendation was for a review of the way in which the Kingston shopping area should be able to be redeveloped and enhanced. The Government has said, "We want to do that before you allow retail in this area". The undeniable fact is that this area is part of the commercial precinct. The matter was tested by this Assembly and by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee through one of the longest public consultation processes of any piece of legislation of this Assembly. It was the subject of consultation which extended beyond four years. It was subject to more public hearings than any other matter, and the committee determined that it was appropriate that this block of land be included in the commercial precinct of the Kingston shopping area. That, in my view, is another reason why our committee was convinced that it should allow this development to proceed in the manner outlined.
I think it is quite wrong for some members of the Assembly to say, "Look at this; the whole system has failed. Six months ago we introduced the Territory Plan, we are developing guidelines and you are not even prepared to stick to the guidelines". As I have said, Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that it be dealt with in this way. In order to undertake this type of development in this area we have outlined a process and, as Mr Moore indicates, this is part of dealing with that process. It is appropriate to have guidelines in place. It is appropriate that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee is required to be involved when those guidelines are exceeded, when the consolidation of blocks occurs, and for all of the other procedures outlined under the planning Act.
On all the tests available to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, by majority decision it has determined that this type of development with this planning regime is appropriate. The ultimate test is what this Assembly does on the arguments put forward today, the weight of the evidence provided in our reports, and the response by the Government. It is a test of this Assembly, and it is an appropriate way for it to be handled. Rather than demonstrating a failure of the Territory Plan, its provisions or the activities of the Planning Committee, it is an indication of the success of the planning regime that this is the process people are required to go through.
Ms Szuty has been extremely critical of the Planning Authority, and on some occasions in the past I too have been extremely critical of the Planning Authority in terms of some of the processes that were in existence some time ago. Again, the Planning Authority puts forward a proposal and, because of the way the legislation is put in place, it is required to be the sponsor to the Executive of planning alterations. It is a simple fact. They are required, under the legislation, to be the sponsor. They are required to put the issues, as presented and negotiated to them and by them, to the Executive. At the end of the day, it is up to the Executive, the Planning Committee and then this Assembly to determine whether what the Planning Authority has done is appropriate.
I reject out of hand any concept which says that the Planning Authority, on this occasion, has been less than forthright and has not allowed issues to be exposed, debated or considered. In fact, it has done the opposite. In my view, it has ensured that public exposure to what is being proposed for this site has been as wide as possible. For anybody to suggest that there has been some sort of clandestine deal done is absolutely outrageous and something which this Assembly should reject. Madam Speaker, I will have much pleasure in voting against the disallowance motion, and I seek the support of the rest of the Assembly for that view.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .