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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2205 ..

MR MOORE (5.30): It was interesting to me to hear Mr Wood, in providing the history of how we got to this point, talk about how well the public consultation process went. To a certain extent, that was reiterated by Ms Tucker and others. That was done under the auspices of Mr Wood's department and Mr Wood's then Planning Authority. Mr Wood is quite right; it was an effectively carried out consultation process and a process that led to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee looking at the environmental issues. Mr Berry, as chair of that committee, using the whole process appropriately, said, "No; we still have concerns". The issue went back to the officials. Mr Berry then, as deputy chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, was also involved with other members of the committee, including me, in looking at the town centre and working through the issues with the Planning Authority. They continued on that consultation process, and did so particularly effectively. They have a track record here. They have a track record of performing very well on the preparation and consultation issues. The goal which Mr Wood set when he was the Minister and which has been taken up by the present Minister was that the community be involved in that process. Is this Bill the best way to get that involvement? That is the question that we are all now considering.

Ms Follett correctly points out that this is the eleventh hour for consultation. There has been a long process to get to this point, and then suddenly we have just over a week to deal with this legislation, which was introduced into this Assembly on 18 June. I do not think that is good enough. I think there are such large numbers of unanswered questions which we have not yet considered that we really ought to take more time to look at this. The most fundamental of those is the issue that Ms Follett drew attention to, and that is the self-funding of the authority through the sale of leases. It is a total change in the way that we approach and use our leasehold system. Our leasehold system, according to the Stein report, is designed not to be used just for the development of an authority but for the benefit of the community as a whole. We are basically handing those leases over. It may well be that, after appropriate consideration of such a fundamental change to the way that we deal with our leases and our leasehold system - the only major asset that this Territory has - we come to the same conclusion as Mr De Domenico asks us to come to. But a week to consider that is entirely inappropriate.

I must say that I am aware, after having heard other people speak, that this Bill is likely to be passed in principle. There are amendments to be put to it. When we are dealing with such fundamental issues of change, we should allow this Bill to go through in principle and then refer it to the appropriate committee, which is probably the Planning and Environment Committee, to consider whether this is an appropriate move. Yes, it costs a couple of months. Well, so be it. That does not mean to say that the development of Gungahlin stops. It does not, because the development of Gungahlin is already going through a process and can continue to develop in the same way as the rest of Canberra has been developed. It is not a case of saying, "Either you get the Gungahlin Development Authority now or there will not be any development of Gungahlin". That is simply nonsense. I am asking members to reconsider their position on this and say, "Should this legislation proceed when there are such fundamental questions before us?".

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