Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1109 ..

Mr Humphries went on to talk about two planning bodies - the NCPA and the Territory planning body. I do not argue that the ACT could do with one body, but I am not sure what role those words have in this document. Mr Humphries knows that it is outside our control. He says that he will talk to the Federal authorities. Good luck. What is he going to do on the ground in the ACT?

Mr Humphries: Do you support me in that?

MR WOOD: Yes, certainly. Mr Humphries spoke about the number of dwellings - and, I assume, units - on sites. This could have been a significant statement, but it was not. I am not sure whether it changes anything at all. More recently, in our greenfields development we have specified a maximum number. In most circumstances, certainly for dual occupancies and the multiunit developments on a lesser scale than the Phillip one that was quoted, which was a fairly large-scale development, the planning criteria specify a maximum number of units. I conceded that Phillip would be different; but, for the most part, the planning criteria specify quite clearly how far a builder may go.

The Chief Minister is in the chamber. Between them, the Chief Minister and Mr Humphries may be able to enlighten me on retail studies. There is a deal of confusion in my mind and, I know, in the minds of those people who are very switched on to this debate. Recently Mr Humphries released - and I thank him for the copy I got - the Ibecon retail study which was initiated some months ago, late last year. Mr Humphries and certainly Mrs Carnell seem to be talking about an independent, the Government's own - it would not be the Government's own - retail study. I wonder whether that is another retail study. Certainly, Mrs Carnell was very emphatic before the election that there would be no further expansion of the major town centres until we had this independent study. Is that the Ibecon one or is it another one?

Mrs Carnell: There are two.

MR WOOD: There are two. Mrs Carnell was out at Belconnen, quite properly - I do not argue about it - digging a shovel in to begin the extensions to the Belconnen shopping centre. That is fine, but it was in contradiction to what she had been saying during the election campaign - that there would not be any of that until these studies had been done. I am pleased that the Ibecon report is out. It gives us some good information on which we may proceed to evaluate what should happen in Tuggeranong and elsewhere. Very strong statements have been made by some Liberals, including Mr De Domenico unless I am mistaken, to the effect, “We cannot do a thing. We cannot do another thing”. That study, as I suggested it would when it was set up, gives us a better idea of what we might do. The blanket veto that the Liberals seem to want to put on is quite inappropriate. Other developments are coming up, such as the Woden Plaza. I am sure that Mr Humphries is alert to that. There is also Manuka. Mr Humphries put out, and is now apparently pulling back, a planning document on Manuka. Are these two to await further studies, or does the Ibecon study cover them?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .