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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4075 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Members will recall that, at the end of last year, the Greens moved a motion calling on the Government to withdraw its call for expressions of interest for the development of the Manuka car park; to undertake a study, with full public consultation, of options for the future of the Manuka car park that best meets the needs and concerns of Manuka traders, the users of Manuka shops, local residents and traders in surrounding shopping centres; and, if redevelopment of the site was identified as the preferred option, to seek Assembly approval of the preferred option before any sale of the site was contemplated.

Unfortunately, when the motion was finally debated in April, the Labor Party amended our motion to allow the expressions of interest process to proceed; but, at least through part of their amendment, they gave the Assembly the opportunity to further review the preferred option. Paragraph (3) of the amended motion read:

even if a variation of the Territory Plan is not required, the preferred option is referred to the Assembly for approval.

This morning, on the ABC, I heard Mr Moore and Mr Berry both say that the Greens were asking for too much consultation and that there had been a lot of consultation on this issue.

Mr Berry: No; I said that you were opportunistic.

MS TUCKER: Mr Berry said that we were opportunistic.

Indeed, there have been many public meetings where the community protested about the scale of this development. These protest meetings were attended by Mr Humphries on most occasions, it is true; but little change has occurred as a result of those meetings. There has been no acknowledgment from the Government that the Government was not involved in the original prospectus or concept plan. This is fundamental to effective and efficient public consultation. That is what the Greens have been talking about since December last year.

We have, in fact, seen some improvement in this process in Civic recently with the proposed changes to the Canberra Centre, where an initial idea was put to the community before too formal a process had started. As it happened, it was not accepted by the community either. But better than this is a system whereby the community has the opportunity to state its view before expressions of interest are sought. With section 41, this did not happen, and so we had the predictable conflict. For the information of members here, this is what the Greens have been pointing out as the fundamental flaw in the process. I refer to the consultation before the concept plan or the prospectus was put in place.

Of course, we are stating quite clearly that, where such decisions are made in a policy vacuum, it is also predictable that there will be problems. We must make decisions about planning in our city in the context of an overall strategic and social plan. In our assessment of the impact of proposals, we must give serious weight to the more intangible things such as, "We love the village atmosphere of Manuka. We do not really want a mall here. We do not feel comfortable in malls". This is the human dimension.

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