Page 2807 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt that unless something is done very quickly the people of the ACT are going to have to be looking for at least $50 per household - perhaps more, on the words of Mr Lamont himself. As I said, we can stand here for the rest of the afternoon and the evening in this debate and chuck all sorts of accusations against one another. Let us get the job done. Whatever needs to be done, let us do it. If the Chief Minister wants the help of the Opposition she is quite welcome to approach us and we will talk to whomever she thinks we ought to talk to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
URBAN INFILL
Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
MR ACTING SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mr Moore proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:
The failure of the ACT Government to deal effectively with the issue of urban infill.
MR MOORE (4.02): Mr Acting Speaker, the Minister is in a pickle. In fact, Canberra is in a pickle. Earlier today, Mr Kaine referred to "the botched inquiry" on urban infill. That is, indeed, what it is.
Mr Kaine: Aha! He was listening.
MR MOORE: In case anybody missed it, the term that Mr Kaine used was "the botched inquiry". He believed that nobody was listening. Indeed, I was listening. That is why I thought I would reiterate the point he made.
So, what did happen with urban infill? Urban infill seemed like such a good idea. Mr Wood came into this Assembly at the time of the last election and said, "We will deliver 50 per cent urban infill". That promise of urban infill seemed to meet with very little resistance. In fact, it had three basic flaws. They are the same basic flaws as we find in the Territory Plan. There is no strategy for it. It does not tell us how much development there will be, where it will be and when it will occur. I have reiterated these three concepts to Mr Wood 50, 60 or 100 times over the last two or three years. The concepts are very simple to understand; yet his department has not delivered on them. It is much more difficult to draw up a plan that recognises those fundamental precepts of planning.
So, when did it go wrong? It started to go wrong long before Mr Wood became the Minister. In fact, I was conscious of it going wrong before self-government. I remember the first time that we dealt with a dual occupancy. It was a dual occupancy in Reid. In my opinion, it did not fit in with or enhance the suburb. It is very important at this stage to emphasise that there are good examples of urban infill in Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .