Page 2814 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL (4.32): Mr Wood's closing remarks indicated that this matter of public importance was directed at the inquirer. I would like to remind members that the matter is:
The failure of the ACT Government to deal effectively with the issue of urban infill.
I am aware that some people out in the community have taken exception to some comments that Mr Lansdown made on television last night. I did not hear the words. I think I saw the comment in the newspaper this morning. It may not have been the most felicitous way of expressing a view; but I did not read into those words what some people in the community do. In fact, I think Mr Lansdown said that people in Canberra had to be prepared for change and to change. I would remind members of this Assembly and, indeed, the community that this Territory changed irrevocably - perhaps for the worst, in some people's eyes - in 1989, when we got self-government. So change does take place. I would prefer to be charitable and put the comments of Mr Lansdown into that context. I feel that people could be making a bit too much out of his words.
I think it is equally unfortunate that Mr Rod Nichols has been targeted, apparently because of some views that he held in relation to infill. But it does not alter the fact that out there in the community there are people who feel very strongly that this inquiry is going to be a whitewash because the department and the planners have got together with the developers, the developers are determined to make a quick quid out of this town, and they are being aided and abetted by the department and the planners. I think that is the nub of this matter of public importance. Quite justifiably, some criticism has been levelled at the Government for its failure to recognise well before now the problems that were being created in relation to urban infill in this Territory.
In his closing remarks, Mr Wood mentioned what is happening in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, how much tougher the governments in those States are in relation to planning decisions and what little input the community in those cities may have into planning. But the point that has been made to me repeatedly by objectors in the ACT to the current infill proposals is that people here do not live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. They do not want to live in those cities. That is why they are living in Canberra. They expect more from Canberra - and so do I. I believe that all of us in this chamber should expect more.
Again, I see a justifiable criticism against this Government for its failure to recognise the problems that the infill policies it created were causing, particularly the 50 : 50 policy. I am not suggesting that any of us were not correct when we passed the unit titles legislation. I do not think that we realised its full implications.
Mr Wood: Yes, we did. It was all said in here.
MR CORNWELL: We did think in terms of granny flats.
Mr Wood: No.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .