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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 748 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Up until now, in this public process that I have referred to, we have been debating only the concept of whether section 41 should be developed. I might say that that has had its limitations, because there have been many concerns expressed based on fears which will not be justified when the proposal comes forward in a more concrete form. People are worried about five-storey proposals; they are worried about very large dimensions of the buildings that might be built on section 41. Those sorts of concerns have been expressed about the proposal when, in fact, some of the proposals - indeed, in some cases, all of the proposals - lack those features.

Mr Speaker, I personally believe that the best thing to do at this point in time would be to allow a particular proposal - one of the five proposals that have been put forward as expressions of interest - to be placed on the table and then to have a debate structured around that particular proposal. I know that Ms Horodny believes that this is some sort of fait accompli, that once it is on the table it cannot possibly be taken off and that it is going to happen if it is there. Let me assure her that the planning processes in this Territory are far more rigorous than would allow that to happen, and the existence of those processes will put the person or persons who put forward such a proposal to great trouble as they bring forward their proposal into the public gaze and provide for considerable public exposure.

Mr Speaker, I also want to indicate to the Assembly that I have had indications of a fairly significant shift in the view of the community groups which opposed the development of section 41. I had a meeting with a prominent member of one of those community groups a couple of weeks ago, who indicated to me that he believed that, with some slight modification of the process whereby we consider how a particular proposal is approved for that site, the proposal itself, the basic proposal to develop section 41, Griffith, could proceed, and, indeed, in his view, should proceed and proceed soon.

Mr Speaker, if that representation to me, which was from one of the most prominent members of the community critical of the proposals when they were first put forward, is an accurate reflection of a viewpoint, then much of the concern that gave rise to Ms Horodny's motion, I think, is dissipated, if not completely obviated, by those words. Some of the specific concerns which have been put forward in this process, I would say, can be dealt with very quickly. There has been some debate, for example, about the loss of two rows of Italian pines separating this site from the occasional care centre at Manuka. I can assure members of the Assembly and of the public that the Government's intention is that, although there are gaps in one of those rows of trees and its value is a little bit debatable, we are quite prepared to indicate that both rows of trees should be retained in any proposal which is proceeded with on that site. I can also advise that ACT Heritage has indicated that there are no heritage issues relating to the site.

There will, of course, be some environmental impact during the construction of any development on section 41. That is unavoidable, obviously. The noisy activities will not be occurring during the whole period of construction, and PALM - Planning and Land Management - will ensure that peak activity does not occur at the times when children are attending the centre. The construction activity will be monitored so that it is undertaken

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