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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3941 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

People came through the door of the Planning Authority and said, "Here is my idea for a townhouse development or a block of flats. I do not particularly have much of a relationship with anything else happening in Kingston. Here is my isolated idea". They put their ideas on the table.

That, Mr Speaker, is what we were trying to avoid with the proposal that was put before the people of Ainslie. I accept that it has not been well received and I accept that we have to go back and start again; but I would say to people who have been involved in this process that it is not open to say, as an alternative to the position put forward by the Government, "Look, do not worry. You do not have to have any medium-density development in your suburb". The Territory Plan does not provide for that exemption. If the people of Ainslie involved in the consultation process say, "We want a suburb with no development at all in it; we want only our low-density houses that we have at the moment", the question needs to be asked: Why should the people of Ainslie enjoy a privilege in that respect because they have been consulted in this process that people everywhere else in Canberra do not enjoy, except in suburbs less than five years old pursuant to the Lansdown guidelines? Why should they enjoy that privilege?

I think, Mr Speaker, that there is some hard thinking to do about this process, and that is the reason why I welcome the inquiry that has been proposed by the Planning and Environment Committee to deal with this issue. I think that the suggestion of pretending that the strategic development options for Ainslie and O'Connor plan never existed, which is what I think some residents would like to argue and what was put to the meeting last weekend that has been referred to by Ms Tucker, is, with respect, not a feasible option. The document has been prepared. A lot of work has gone into it and, as a set of ideas about the way Ainslie could look, it ought to stay on the table because in one sense it sends a message about the problems facing Ainslie and anywhere else in Canberra. We have to face the reality that there will be these sorts of pressures in inner areas of Canberra like that.

I think we are in a bit of a lull at the moment. Economic activity generally in the Territory is low. The result is that there is not intense pressure for a lot of that kind of development. But Canberra goes through cycles like any other city. When that cycle turns around again and we find intensive pressure for redevelopment of this city, places like Ainslie sooner or later will be bombarded with proposals like this. (Extension of time granted) If we dump this process and put nothing in its place which accommodates these kinds of ideas, what we are saying to the people of Ainslie is, "You are on your own, buddies. The next person who walks through the door with a proposal might get it up. Your suburb will change and you will not have much say in it, other than through processes like public consultation, the LAPACs and so on that are already there". Mr Speaker, we need more than that. We have to devise a system of helping this out.

I would say to the Greens that it is quite disingenuous to claim that there is no public consultation being gone through in this situation. I have heard some outrageous things said about this, such as claims that the Government is thrusting a particular proposal down people's throats and is imposing this new plan on people in Ainslie. That is not true. It never has been true. I say to the Greens that they had better take on board the fact that there are many ways of consulting with people. They do not have a monopoly

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