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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4735 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That is leading to a workshop this coming Saturday at Manuka. People have had the advantage of having seen those expressions of interest, those concepts, in the window at Manuka Court, and they now have a chance to come along and comment on them.

What will happen there is that there will be an independent facilitator. That person will invite all and sundry to come to the meeting. The five organisations or persons who have put their expressions of interest forward will be invited to tell the meeting why their proposal is so good for Manuka, and then people will be able to ask them questions and grill them on their proposals. That is not usually a process that is employed in these arrangements, Ms Horodny, and for you to get up here and suggest that the Government has no processes of evaluation in place, that the Government is not interested in consulting with the public, is just absolute nonsense. I think it would be too much to expect you to withdraw the suggestions of those things being the case. It would not be too much to suggest it; it would be too much to expect it to happen. (Extension of time granted)

I will try to be quick. The suggestion, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that the processes being used for section 41 at Manuka are in breach of the Territory Plan is simply not true. I am about to table two advices from the Australian Capital Territory Government Solicitor which indicate fairly clearly that, although it is not possible to be categorical at this point, because the exact proposals on which the decision might be made have not yet been determined, it is very clear that the general proposals that can be put forward pursuant to the expressions of interest are quite capable of operating within the Territory Plan as it now stands. I will quote from one of them. This is an opinion from the Chief Solicitor, Mr Michael Peedom, dated 25 November, in which he talks about the question of car parking spaces and how they fit with the Territory Plan. It concludes by saying:

Provided, however, any assessment when made is based upon accurate data and well recognised planning principles there does not appear to be any basis for concluding that the invitation -

that is, the invitation for expressions of interest -

will result in a development which is inconsistent with the Territory Plan.

There is a second advice, dated 26 November, which basically confirms that indication. I table those two advices.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is not true to say that the plan precludes this kind of purpose. My advice is that, unless there is some proposal which goes beyond what is envisaged at this stage, it is entirely likely, indeed almost certain, that there will be no requirement for a variation to the Territory Plan. Even Mr Powell, I think, is backtracking on that issue at the moment, so I would not take advice from that quarter if I were you, Ms Horodny. Overall, the misrepresentations that have been made in respect of this process, which Ms Horodny has swallowed hook, line and sinker, really demand that the Assembly not accept the motion that has been put forward by Ms Horodny, at least in this form.

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