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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3637 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I think it is incumbent on members of the Assembly not to pretend to the public that plans cannot be varied. Indeed, I understand that Ms McRae went to a public meeting last Saturday, where she proposed that the plan should be varied to accommodate the changing of a certain area of Latham from space reserved for urban consolidation to parkland. Obviously, all of us are interested in change to the Territory Plan at one time or another, in one way or another. So, it is foolish and silly to get up and say, "We must defend what is in the Territory Plan, right or wrong. Minister, you must always protect the letter of the Territory Plan". We know that that is not the case.

As to whether there is a possibility of using land on the southern shores of Lake Tuggeranong, I am not personally aware of what land might be available there for that purpose. If Mr Wood believes that there is land there for that purpose, I will have my department investigate that and bring that alternative to the notice of the person that I have referred to. If he wishes to pursue that option instead, that would be great. If, however, he wishes to pursue another option, I am prepared to consider that. That does not imply that I support the proposal. That does not imply that there is any likelihood of its succeeding. It is urban open space, which naturally is sensitive; but I will consider such ideas, since members of Mr Wood's own party would insist in other circumstances that I do so.

MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Humphries's comparison is not valid, since it supposes that we will convert proposed residential land to parkland - a very different proposition. However, Minister, the Territory Plan says:

The urban open space system in Canberra has helped give the city its image as the garden city capital of Australia. The system enhances the scenic setting of Canberra and provides an attractive environment for people's recreational activity and enjoyment ... it enables protection of natural and cultural features ...

Do you regard these as important? I ask again: Would you seek to protect such features?

MR HUMPHRIES: Of course, I consider - - -

Mr Moore: Tell them the process for varying the Territory Plan.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. Of course, I value such land and I believe that it should be protected; obviously, I do. But, if you are asking me whether I believe that every bit of land which at the moment is zoned in a particular way - let us say as urban open space - should not be zoned in any other way, then I would say to you that that is a rather foolish benchmark to set. You took exception to my quoting Ms McRae's example. I will give you another example, also from your party. Another of your colleagues - Ms Reilly - has approached me about exchanging a piece of urban open space for a piece of land designated for housing. She has suggested, as I understand the idea, that we actually turn urban open space into housing.

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