Page 2813 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We established a secretariat. There was an objection to a bureaucrat. There was no objection to his competence or his integrity; but, because he was from the planning area, there was an objection to his carrying out what were purely secretarial roles. In the interests of agreement and consensus, I have undertaken to find some other person, in a much more distant part of the bureaucracy, who can do that work. I will probably be able to provide that person's name later tonight or early tomorrow morning. I believe that Mr Lansdown, who has eminent qualifications, will do it well. I am grateful for Mr Moore's integrity in indicating that he is not going to pass judgment ahead of any report. I expect that all members in this Assembly and in the broader community will do likewise.
This is an issue that is being hotly debated in Canberra. As I am sure members, especially members of the PDI Committee, are aware, it is an issue that is being hotly debated around Australia. Australians everywhere are doing two things. They are acknowledging that our cities cannot spread forever, and they are doing something else: They are actually wanting to buy accommodation that is not necessarily on the fringes of cities. I am sometimes accused of listening to developers. The fact is that builders will build houses to the market. The market says, "We want a certain sort of house", and the builders provide that. It is the case that we have an oversupply at the moment because some builders thought that the very high building rates of a year or so ago would be sustained, whereas we have come down to the average level for Canberra. So this is an Australia-wide issue, and States are having to deal with it.
It may be that, as a result of this inquiry - only Mr Lansdown will be determining what the outcome will be - we will go back and say, "It will be all greenfields development". That has not been the view expressed in this Assembly before. Mr Moore acknowledged today that we do need to consolidate in some areas. I had better not put words into his mouth; but I do not think there is opposition to some of what has happened in the past. It is still open for us to go back to total greenfields development, if that is what Mr Lansdown believes the community wants. He has that difficult task of assessing what the entire community wants. It is a task that we attend to in this Assembly, and it is one that is not always resolved. I might point out that the processes we have in this Territory are very much more open and more capable of community input, objection and appeal than those in other places. In Brisbane, residential land can be subdivided down to 300 square metres. In Sydney, the State Government has introduced policies to override local councils who are reluctant to accept medium density housing. I think that in Melbourne single-storey dual occupancy can be carried out anywhere, without any consultation or right of appeal.
That is not the sort of system that we wanted for Canberra. We wanted a system in which the community can participate. People often say that they are overridden. But I have never known a community that is more intent on saying what it thinks; with a government, an opposition and independents who listen; and with people in the Planning Authority, in this instance, who go out and attend meetings and pay very careful attention to what is happening and then, if there is not agreement, are subject to appeal mechanisms at the end of the day. I think that we have a sound process. I believe now - and time will confirm it - that we have an inquirer who will do an outstanding job. The process will continue. I invite all in the community to say what they want to say. They will be heard. They will be attended to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .