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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2827 ..

MRS CARNELL: Thank you very much for the question. I have actually answered it on radio on a couple of occasions, but obviously you were not listening. With regard to this proposal and other rural residential developments in the ACT, I have had a number of discussions with a number of developers, as I think have other members of the Assembly. We believe, as a government, that there is a need for rural residential development inside the ACT. As well as Mr Whitcombe, I have spoken to a number of other people and have encouraged them to come up with proposals that would achieve this end.

The reason we believe that rural residential developments are important for Canberra is that at the moment - it really does not require a genius to show it - a number of rural residential developments are occurring right around the ACT and are actually very successful. What is happening is that people are moving over the border into rural residential developments in New South Wales and then proceeding to use all of our services. In other words, they are coming back into the ACT, usually using road systems that were never designed to achieve that sort of traffic flow, using our schools, using our hospitals, and so on, and they have every right to do so.

The problem is that they are paying their rates and all of the other residential-style taxes to New South Wales. We do not think that is a terribly good idea; so, if there is a market, and there has been shown to be a market, for rural residential development around the ACT, we think we should get our bit of the action. So we have put it to a number of developers, not just Mr Whitcombe, that they should look at opportunities in the ACT, not just in the Hall area but all the way around the ACT, to see whether there are appropriate bits of land and to come forward with proposals. Quite simply, that is the involvement.

MS HORODNY: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. The issues that you have brought up are obviously part of a process that needs to be gone through. In that same letter Mr Whitcombe said that Mr Mick Lilley, the executive director of the Office of Financial Management, was assisting with financial assessment of the proposal and other issues. Can you explain why Mr Lilley is providing this assistance to a private proposal that has no formal status and is inconsistent with the Territory Plan?

MRS CARNELL: Because that is what OFM does. Quite seriously, when a proposal comes forward to the ACT there are a number of stages which need to be gone through. One of them is determining whether the thing is financially viable. There are also planning proposals that have to be gone through. There are Territory Plan issues. All sorts of issues are addressed. One thing we do not do in this Government is sit on our hands. What we could do, of course, is say to developers or say to people with good ideas, "Look, you go out there. It is all your deal. If you can finally get through the system you might get a proposal". That is not the approach we take.

If we believe there is something that is worth doing, and we certainly believe rural residential development is worth doing - not necessarily that proposal; that may or may not go anywhere - we will give potential developers, people who have good ideas in Canberra, all the help we can in getting them into the process. I am proud of that and we will continue to do that. If we sit on our hands and just expect people with good ideas to somehow do all of those things themselves, we will lose a lot of good proposals.

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