Page 238 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (10.56): Madam Speaker, I have listened to both Ms Szuty and Mr Lamont. Mr Lamont's speech, lucid as it was, as usual, did raise the issue of the process. I must say that the process we are part of now is entirely appropriate. The process Ms Szuty has enhanced by moving disallowance is entirely appropriate. It is important to raise a few issues that I think will throw some light on what has happened here and on where we are going.
Back in 1986-87, when Greg Cornwell and I, and many other people, sat through NCDC proposals about how we were going to improve development in Canberra in terms of the rights of both the developers and the opponents of development, the one thing that was consistent, I think it is fair to say, was that both the developers and the opponents wanted certainty. We heard from developers again and again that they wanted certainty. It seemed to me that the development of the Territory Plan provided that option. For the vast majority of developments, the developers simply go to the Territory Plan, work within the constraints and, having done that, can be assured that their development will proceed. The only time they lose that certainty is when they try on something else, when they decide that they want to change from the Territory Plan and see whether they can vary it. The Territory Plan must be a living document and, therefore, it is appropriate that variations go through the process we have talked about.
In this particular instance, Mr Lamont has misrepresented a number of things that have happened. The developer in this case purchased the property knowing very well - we know this from the letter Mr Wood was kind enough to distribute - that, as part of purchasing that property, within the purchase price he was prepared to bid, he had an obligation to provide a certain amount of public parking. He knew that he had that obligation, so he had to work that into his price. Yet the argument we have heard from Mr Lamont again and again is that he was entitled to seek to change the guidelines because he had to provide this public parking. That is just not the case. He knew the guidelines. He knew what had to happen from there.
After that, he tried it on. However he got to that position, he made an ambit claim in terms of the tower. He tried on a variation to the plan to see whether he could get a tower going there because, if he did get a tower going, he would make much more profit. When that was knocked on the head, he went for a further variation. It is the old developer's game that you purchase a piece of land for a certain price within certain guidelines, and then you vary those in order to be able to do something else, because in that way you can make a greater profit. That is a normal part of the process we have, but we also have a responsibility to ask: Is that process in the public interest?
Quite clearly, Mr Lamont believes that it is in the public interest, as do the majority of the members of the Planning Committee. As a rule, when the majority of the members of the Planning Committee agree - and many of their reports are unanimous - the Assembly seems generally to accept that. However, there will no doubt be times when individuals in this Assembly who are not on the Planning Committee will still move disallowance because they disagree with even unanimous reports of the Planning Committee, and that is also part of the process. We have here a situation where the developer makes an ambit claim; it is knocked off, so he goes for a further claim to use the piece of land for other than what it was designed for.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .