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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2204 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We are also very pleased that a significant area of native grassland where the town centre was originally sited was protected by the Planning Authority establishing a nature reserve in that area and moving the major elements of the town centre. We will be watching closely whether the innovative vision for the town centre actually occurs through the development of stage 1 of the town centre or whether purely commercial considerations will override broader community interests. In this regard we have a few concerns about the Bill to establish the Gungahlin Development Authority which the Government has tabled. It seems to have a very commercial focus on developing and managing the land and the town centre and does not appear to have much responsibility for ensuring that the necessary community facilities will also be provided in the town centre.

We will also be supporting this Bill. We have discussed various issues of concern with other members of this place, and we will be putting amendments forward to try to ensure that this board is looking after the broad range of interests. There has also been discussion about whether or not this authority is in some way getting in the way of what the Planning Authority should be doing. While I accept that there could be some concerns there, we do not have at the moment a land management authority that would actually be able to handle this basic management aspect of developing this town centre which everyone here seems to agree needs to happen as quickly as possible. It seems appropriate to have this authority.

We note that it will be reviewed after five years. It is quite possible that it will not need to exist after that time. Ms Follett raised the question of hypothecation of revenue. I agree that it is interesting; it is unusual; it does not seem consistent with the Government's normal policy. Apart from hypothecating money from gambling to elite sport, as I recall, they are normally not particularly keen on that idea. I am not quite sure what the rationale was behind that here, but as the whole authority will be reviewed in five years I imagine that those sorts of things can be discussed at that point as well.

I will just say in conclusion that, with the amendments which we propose to put and which, hopefully, will be supported, I hope that this authority will actually be able to continue what has been a very good process in terms of getting a town centre which is going to meet the needs of the people living there who had a great say in the design of that town centre and which I hope, as Mr Wood does, will be an example of much more innovative planning and a much more diverse landscape, if you like, of not only commercial facilities but community facilities and employment facilities. I do not share Ms Follett's enjoyment of malls either, I have to say; I feel more like Mr Wood. I think it is very interesting that, after such a comprehensive consultation process, that was the overriding view. You wonder sometimes who did decide to build the malls that exist already in this town. I know that you like them, Ms Follett, but I must say that I do not like them at all. I do wonder who designed them. I do know that a lot of people do not find them a good environment to be in. It was clear that that was the case after the consultation on Gungahlin. I look forward to seeing an exciting development occur very quickly.

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