Page 4418 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Queanbeyan City Council is most probably that they fear that they will be losing one or two businesses to the new advanced technology manufacturing park. I am unable to see beyond that motivation. I reject the so-called concerns that have been raised by the Queanbeyan City Council. If that council does wish to have further consultations and cooperative efforts towards the economic development of the region, then they have every opportunity to do so through other forums. Indeed, there are such broad consultations that occur from time to time.
The final objection that Ms Szuty has raised concerns the comments made in a submission by the Royal Australian Planning Institute. I reject their comments as well. I believe that the Royal Australian Planning Institute has not had sufficient contact with the Canberra Region Advanced Technology Manufacturing Association. Indeed, there is not much sign that they have had any consultation with the association at all. What the Royal Australian Planning Institute has completely failed to observe is the fact that this is a manufacturing estate. They say, in their submission, that they believe that the Gungahlin Town Centre might have been an appropriate location. That is nonsense. They clearly misunderstand the purpose of this estate. It is not a common error for them to make, but I am a bit worried that there does appear to have been that lack of understanding on their part of the nature of the development that is proposed.
Madam Speaker, it is one of the fundamental requirements of this development that it provide a clean and environmentally sound manufacturing estate at industrial land prices. If CRATMA members or other advanced technology manufacturers could afford to move into a town centre, I do not believe that our present planning laws would enable them to. It is not a retail operation; it is not a service industry operation; it is not a professional suite of offices; it is a manufacturing estate. That is a quite different thing. I do not believe that many of our town centres, other than those that are zoned for industrial purposes, would be suitable at all for this estate. Unfortunately, the Royal Australian Planning Institute has got it wrong.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to comment briefly on the demand for this estate. As I said yesterday, or perhaps the day before, the idea of the estate arose from the manufacturers themselves. They came to the Government and said that they were sick of operating out of diverse, grubby and unsuitable industrial areas; that those of them who are spread around the ACT and Queanbeyan would like to see a clean and appropriate location that they believe would enable them to present themselves best to the rest of the world and to carry on their manufacturing business in an environment that suited, and was purposely designed for, their industry. That was the original concept behind this estate.
To my knowledge, there are some 14 local companies who have indicated their interest in moving to the estate. Much has been made of this figure of 25 companies moving to the ACT. As I said yesterday, I have never used that figure; I have never made that statement. There is some expectation that, if all its stages are completed, eventually the estate may have some 25 companies; but, even then, I did not say that. I believe that the demand from local companies is sufficient to enable this estate to go ahead. If we are able to attract, at a sustainable rate, several other manufacturers from interstate, as seems likely, then that is very much to the good of the ACT and particularly our employment opportunities. The Government will be opposing Ms Szuty's motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .