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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 610 ..

MR SMYTH

the submissions can be grouped under eight headings - planning policy, environmental management, financial implications, infrastructure, regional planning, heritage, landscape, and community.

It is curious, Mr Speaker, that we now have what is classed as a matter of public importance and yet, in the consultation period, it was not that important, because none of the Assembly members opposite took the opportunity to have their say and to reveal what they thought of the report. It is curious that we are in the position today of having this matter of public importance debate about the adequacy of a report that nobody managed to comment on or bothered to comment on. A report on the results of the consultation process is currently being prepared, in line with the Government's protocol. But, Mr Speaker, it is a discussion paper. It put out the issues as a first cut, and I think that it deals with the issues quite clearly.

The fact that the criteria used in examining potential sites are clearly reflected in the comments made by the 31 submissions would show that the community has a good understanding of this issue and in many cases has opinions on it. It is quite clear from the amount of rural residential development that goes on around the ACT that there is an extraordinarily large interest in having this sort of lifestyle available to individuals. We simply believe that there should be some access by ACT residents to it in the ACT.

The paper is a discussion paper. We have heard nothing from the crossbench or Labor on this issue, Mr Speaker. It will be interesting to hear what my colleague Mr Corbell says when he gets up to sing or damn the praises of this report. The report clearly sets out that it looked at a number of potential sites and discounted or included those sites, based on the selection criteria. It ranges from the Cotter Reserve and Casuarina Sands to Hall, Kinlyside, the Melrose Valley, North Gungahlin, the Pierces Creek forestry settlement, South Belconnen, the Stromlo forestry settlement, Tharwa, the Uriarra forestry settlement and West Belconnen, as well as the West Jerrabomberra Valley. Because of the analysis done, some sites have been discounted and some sites have been included, but before such sites could be released, Mr Speaker, further work would be done, and the Government has said that it will do further work before it proceeds with this. That will not happen overnight. It will take some time and it will follow the full planning process.

As a discussion paper, Mr Speaker, this discussion paper is more than adequate. The discussion paper clearly canvasses the areas of interest. It clearly, as a discussion paper, can lead debate and, as a discussion paper, has been responded to by the community.

Mr Speaker, I do not believe that what we have before us is a matter of public importance. We have an absolute lack of interest in this matter from the crossbench and the Labor Party, except for Mr Corbell, simply because they know that this debate is a con, this debate is a put-up. The discussion paper canvassed the issues very well and it is quite capable of leading the debate that would lead to any further development of future sites for rural residential purposes. We will now go through the submissions that we have received to make sure that there is nothing we have missed or need to address. Mr Speaker, rural residential development will happen in the ACT. I believe that there is a desire from the community to live in a rural residential setting in the ACT and this Government is very pleased to provide that.

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