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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 1969 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, my second point in relation to the land bank issue relates to the first. The land that the ACT holds is limited and finite. Again, is it sensible to use limited, finite land resources for purposes which are widely recognised as fairly inefficient uses of the land - land which should only be used, if at all, in an urban interface way? Again, the Government has failed to address those issues in any of its examination. Instead, it has simply bulldozed ahead, ploughed on with its agenda for rural residential, no matter what the costs.

Environmental and land management issues have also not been adequately addressed. It is interesting to note, Mr Speaker, that in the consultation on the Government's policy document, over two-thirds of the submissions received were opposed to this sort of redevelopment, and a significant number of them were opposed on the grounds of the Government's failure to adequately address the environmental and land management issues associated with this form of potential land use.

Issues to do with land management, environmental management, bushfire management, woody weeds, the impact of erosion and run-off are very important. We have seen this Government take the very commendable step of putting in place land management agreements for people who hold rural leases to make sure that they take proper account of the environmental factors associated with managing rural land. Mr Speaker, you talk to any farmer and they will tell you that rural residential estates have very poor land management practices. One of the main reasons is that they have large areas of land associated with a particular landowner who is often not there full time to do the sort of land management that needs to be done to protect the site. These issues have not been adequately addressed. That is another reason why we need this inquiry.

Mr Speaker, my next point is in relation to financial costs and benefits. This Government prides itself on the need to get the best return on our assets; but that does not apply, it would seem, when it comes to rural residential development. Indeed, in questioning in the Assembly, Mr Smyth said that the financial imperative for a return on the land was not one of the most important for the Government. Well, Mr Speaker, surely it should be a very significant factor. Indeed, it drives a lot of other land releases. It drives standard suburban subdivision land release, it drives commercial land release, so why should it not drive rural residential land release? The Government has failed to take account of that fact. Indeed, it has ignored it. It has ignored it because it does not suit its argument. Mr Speaker, we have a responsibility to make sure we get a fair price for our land if we release it. The Government has not taken account of that fact.

Another important and final matter relates to consistency with the Territory and national capital plans of this form of land use. The Territory and national capital plans outline how the ACT fits into its environment, and particularly the issue of the definition around the urban edge. It has been a longstanding principle of planning policy development that we will not have a city which peters out at the edge and is higgledy-piggledy before merging into rural use. Indeed, the fundamental principle of a national capital is that there is a distinct definition between rural use and urban use. There is a distinct mark, a distinct boundary, between the two. It is one of the benefits and one of the beauties of our city that there is such a distinct interface and it does not merge from one to the other.

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