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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 759 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

The preliminary agreement provided a safeguard mechanism to ensure that all planning and financial feasibility assessments were undertaken. The agreement also ensured that extensive public consultation was undertaken. This provided the opportunity for any community reaction to be gauged and taken into account.

Mr Corbell has also suggested that the Government pre-empted the outcome of an examination of the benefits and costs of rural residential development in the Territory by committing to rural residential development in Hall. The Hall development would have been dependent and is dependent on the outcome of the rural residential study being undertaken by PALM, not whether we go ahead with rural residential development. That is Government policy - full stop. Obviously, if the Territory Plan cannot be changed or the National Capital Plan cannot be changed, it will not go ahead. But there has been no intervention to circumvent this study. The study will be presented to the Government at some stage in the future; but this Government believes very strongly that rural residential development is in the best interests of the ACT. There is no doubt that there is a market for rural residential blocks outside the ACT and there certainly is no doubt that there is a market inside the ACT. I cannot understand why those opposite believe that rural residential development that has an obvious market - therefore, a return to the people of the ACT - is somehow not a good way to go.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we have answered all of these questions so often that I cannot believe it. We have answered the questions time and time again. I must admit that it suits me, because it means that they waste question time every day. Comments have been made that the people of Canberra have shown grave concern over this whole issue. How many letters have there been? My colleagues have gone.

Mr Stanhope: They are embarrassed.

MS CARNELL: I think they are just bored. How many letters have any of you got on this issue, apart from Mr Kearney's? None. Mr Kearney's and how many others? Zero. This shows the huge community outcry on this issue. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, in saying that, I have had a couple of letters from people supporting the proposal; but, in terms of people opposing it, apart from Mr Kearney, the huge community outrage and concern that those opposite are talking about is deafening in its silence.

Mr Berry: It is coming.

MS CARNELL: It is coming. That is fascinating.

Mr Humphries: It is not here yet, but it is going to come.

MS CARNELL: It is going to come, yes.

Debate interrupted.

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