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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 581 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

companies, or corporatised companies even, joint ventures and so on operating public utilities and essential services, or services where government would have done that in the past. I look forward to further debate on this and seeing what we end up with if we do end up with legislation.

MR HIRD (11.31): As chairman, I am pleased to present Report No. 42 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services entitled "Draft Variation No. 113 to the Territory Plan: Kingston Foreshore", together with a copy of the extracts of the minutes of proceedings. I move:

Mr Speaker, this is a unanimous report and it is about what probably will be one of the biggest construction and development projects undertaken by this Government if the parliament agrees with our report.

The inquiry into variation No. 113 was completed in quick time, and for that I would like to pay tribute to those departmental officers who assisted the committee, those who put submissions to the committee, and also my colleagues Mr Corbell and Mr Rugendyke and our hardworking secretary, Rod Power.

The report covers all the issues. There were quite a number of issues identified, one in particular in the media of recent times, and I will come to that later. Basically this report identifies three important points. One in particular was whether there should be high-rise development. Some submissions were received at the eleventh hour which suggested that my committee should give an indication about future development of the high-rise areas on the foreshore.

Let me make it clear to this house and to the people of Canberra, as the chairman of this committee, that there will be no high-rise development on the Kingston foreshore under this variation. Indeed, there was no intention of having any high-rise development in the variation. The committee could see no justification for it. We should not move away from the international competition and the design work that was undertaken by the professional people who were engaged in putting forward these various design options. The HIA and MBA may have tried to attract attention to the supposed desirability of high-rise development, but, as I indicated, that was at the eleventh hour and the committee was not impressed. The proposal has absolutely no endorsement by my committee.

Even though the area is outside the Parliamentary Triangle, it can be seen that it overshadows that area, so the National Capital Authority would also have some questions to raise in respect of a proposed high-rise development. I cannot speak for the authority, Mr Speaker, but I do not believe they would entertain a high-rise situation in this development or any future development.

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