Page 4416 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am hopeful that Opposition members will give me a fair hearing before they reach a final decision in respect of this variation to the Territory Plan on this occasion. I stress the words "on this occasion", because I believe that we are dealing with this variation at an inappropriate time. I emphasised this point when I spoke to my dissenting report on the draft variation on Tuesday. I believe that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee simply did not have sufficient information at the time to approve this variation. I note the Chief Minister's tabling yesterday of her press statements in relation to the potential development of the site, and I note her answer to Mrs Carnell's question without notice on Tuesday; but I still believe that this Assembly does not have at its disposal sufficient information to make an informed decision at this time.
The concept of an advanced technology manufacturing estate is not a new one. The Fern Hill Technology Park has been established for many years, and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and the Assembly approved a draft variation to the Territory Plan to enable residential development to occur on the site during 1992, I believe. The draft variation was proposed and approved due to the low demand for the establishment of technological industries in the park.
The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee heard representations from the Queanbeyan City Council about the distinct lack of success of their own advanced technological estate in 1988. I note the Chief Minister's remarks in relation to the demand for the establishment of sites on the Symonston site from the Canberra Region Advanced Technology Manufacturing Association, or CRATMA. But, as I indicated on Tuesday, as a member of the committee I did not have the opportunity to meet directly with CRATMA representatives in relation to the draft variation; nor did I have access to the Coopers and Lybrand consultants' report, which was deemed by a government officer at the time to be commercial-in-confidence. Notwithstanding this, Mrs Carnell believes that the demand for sites in Symonston may be as low as one to two sites per year.
As I said before, the Assembly will make a much better decision on this variation next year, when all of the parameters are known, and if the demand for sites is, as Mrs Carnell asserts, one to two sites per year, then there is no reason not to defer a decision until then. The generation of employment at the Symonston site has been estimated as "relatively small", from the preliminary assessment; and "500 to 700 people", I believe, from other sources. The generation of employment, I am sure members will agree, is desirable; but how much easier would it be to determine forecast employment levels when the known area of the site for development is finally determined. It will not be determined until early 1995.
As members will be aware, surveys to determine the habitat of the eastern lined earless dragon will occur in December-January in proposed stages 2 and 3 of the site. The question whether stages 2 and 3 are appropriate for development, or whether they will remain as reserves for the earless dragon, is quite fundamental to the viability and development of the project overall. Again the question arises: Why rush into stage one now and run the risk of major redesign work if stages 2 and 3 go ahead, when all will be revealed in March next year? While the surveys for the earless dragon are being undertaken, the opportunity is ripe for the study to proceed into the economic impact of the proposed development on Queanbeyan, as requested by the Queanbeyan City Council.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .