Page 66 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would suggest that our major recommendation in relation to this variation - notwithstanding the other land use issues and the issue of defined land that we have addressed in this report - is what we have said at page 40, paragraph 9.32. I quote:
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the government commission an independent economic analysis of the North Watson proposal compared to a greenfields development, to be tabled in the Assembly within the disallowance period applying to the draft Variation.
The reason for that, Madam Speaker, is quite clear. That independent economic analysis, I understand from the Minister, is being undertaken by Access Economics. As outlined in our report, it will be tabled in the disallowance period for this variation. It means that if there is any contradiction, if there is any debate, the debate will be on the floor of the Assembly, under public scrutiny. The issues that are raised and identified by Access Economics will be able to be debated in a completely open forum. At the end of the day, that is probably the most appropriate way for the committee to resolve this impasse - to bring it to the floor of the Assembly within the disallowance period. If a member remains dissatisfied, on the basis of the financial analysis undertaken by Access Economics, it will be here on the floor of the Assembly that he or she can argue against Access Economics's outcomes, one way or the other, and then move that the variation not proceed.
I believe that this committee, again, has been able to come to grips with an extremely vexing issue as far as the community is concerned. As Mr De Domenico, Mr Kaine, Ms Szuty and Ms Ellis have pointed out already in relation to Tuggeranong Homestead, not everybody is going to be happy with what the outcome is on the site; but, in taking account of people like the Craft Council, this variation ensures that the Craft Council's home is preserved, maintained and protected. In relation to groups such as the Canberra Organic Growers Association who have access to unleased government land, their continued participation, in the long term, on that site, is assured. I believe that it is assured, Madam Speaker, because we have identified three sites within the North Watson area that cannot be used for the residential nature allowed in the additional areas of entertainment, leisure and recreation. Those three sites are currently non-leased government land or where leases are about to expire, so the Government will not be developing those sites until such time as the entertainment, leisure or recreation industries, the tourism industry in Canberra, develops itself to such a stage as to need to utilise that land. I believe that it would be appropriate for the existing land uses, such as that of the organic growers, to continue. Therefore their continued use of those sites is assured until that eventuality occurs. In relation to the other users of the site, we have been informed that, by and large, they are all happy with the proposals that either are being put in place or have been put in place for their relocation, and the program over which that relocation will occur.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the members of the committee for having been able, in what could have been an extremely divisive inquiry, to come down with a unanimous report. It again shows that this committee acts as part of the planning process. It is not separate from it; it is part of the planning process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .