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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1214 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

I have been through a lot of this whole proposal before. It is true that I wrote to the Minister for Planning on 26 June last year on this matter. For those members who accuse me of not following proper process - I assume that is what those opposite are saying - I emphasise that in that letter to Mr Humphries, again a letter that Mr Stanhope has alluded to, I said this:

I believe it is important that the government move quickly -

This is the bit that Mr Stanhope seems not to have spoken about -

within current planning guidelines, to determine the viability and suitability of such a development.

Mr Speaker, I stand by that. I think rural residential is great for the ACT. I am very enthusiastic about rural residential. By the way, Mr Speaker, so is the majority of this Assembly. The approach I put to Mr Humphries, and I think Mr Humphries followed up on, is, yes, we should go down this path quickly, within current planning guidelines, to determine the viability and suitability of such a development. I also asked that the matter be assessed and potentially progressed - I now quote again something that Mr Stanhope did not - "if it is approved". At no time did the Government seek to short-circuit the proper planning process or to pre-empt the outcomes of those processes.

The decision to request that the matter be assessed was made to provide an opportunity for the community to have a rural residential lifestyle in the Territory, if this could be achieved within statutory planning guidelines, without having to go across the border to achieve this. In agreeing that that proposal be assessed, the Government gave high priority to ensuring that it put in place adequate measures to protect the Territory's interests while the proposal was being further developed. I think this is something that those opposite should take note of because it is something that they did not do when in government. The arrangements also ensured that the Bolton's long association with the district was recognised and acknowledged even though, Mr Speaker, as I think I have made clear lots of times, we were very aware that the blocks, leases, whatever we are calling them today, were held on a monthly tenancy.

The Territory did not enter into a joint venture. The preliminary agreement set out obligations on the Territory and Mr Whitcombe prior to negotiating a joint venture. Mr Speaker, I have proven categorically, I believe, that Mr Whitcombe did believe, and certainly has said he believed, and certainly attached that to the preliminary agreement, that he was bringing all of Hillview to the table. But this Government did not jump into a joint venture as those opposite did with Harcourt Hill. The agreement spelt out all preconditions to be satisfied before the Territory would consider such a venture or be committed in any other way. It is worth restating these preconditions, for the information of members. We required obtaining all planning clearances. This included potential changes to the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan if needed. It also covered geotechnical, social planning, landscaping, archaeological and heritage issues, traffic and site engineering. Economic and financial assessments were also preconditions. The work done on the preliminary assessment, as people in this Assembly know, cost $107,888. That has been put to full use, unlike the position that those opposite took.

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