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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 583 ..


MR CORBELL (continuing):

I endorse the unanimous recommendation of this committee that there be no consideration given to high-rise towers on the Kingston foreshore site. I would go one further than the committee and say that that should be a matter of no consideration now or in the foreseeable future because there is absolutely no justification for it.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting that when this issue was first raised last week the Minister got a little bit uppity about it and accused me of pre-empting the committee's hearings. I am very pleased that the Minister quickly did his research and realised that, unlike other committees in this place, the Planning and Urban Services Committee authorises all of its submissions as public documents from the time the committee receives them. That is very important, Mr Speaker, because the Planning and Urban Services Committee considers a wide range of often controversial issues that deal with planning and development. It is important that people in the community have the option of being able to understand what information the committee has received and see it as public documents even before the public hearings take place. That actually contributes to the public hearing when an issue is raised and put out there in the public arena for people to be aware of.

At the public hearing last Friday we had Professor Ken Taylor appear before us as head of the National Trust of the ACT. He was there only because he had become aware of the proposals that had been put to the committee by the MBA and the HIA in relation to the possibility of high-rise towers. His contribution was very useful because we were able to get his comments on the record at the same time that we were getting the comments from the MBA and the HIA about towers. That would not have occurred, Mr Speaker, if there had not been some raising of those submissions prior to the hearings taking place. So I believe it is a very positive process.

I think the strength of the committee's recommendation today, Mr Speaker, stems partly from the fact that we have a Minister for planning who was a little bit reluctant to rule it out straightaway. We have a Minister for planning who was umming and aahing, saying, "Well, you know", and going on the attack against me rather than backing up his Government's own draft variation. I would have thought, Mr Speaker, it would have been completely responsible and acceptable and understandable for the Minister for planning to stand up in this place - indeed, even before this place met last week - and say, "The Government has put out a draft variation and that is our position". Indeed, Mr Speaker, that is what the Government has done on previous occasions. When draft variations have come out, the Minister for planning has stood up and said, "This is the Government's position and we are putting it to the Urban Services Committee for their consideration". But he did not say that.

Mr Berry: You cannot have it both ways.

MR CORBELL

: He did not say that. My colleague Mr Berry says, "You can't have it both ways". Indeed, you cannot, Mr Speaker, but Mr Smyth tried last week. It took a little bit of poking and prodding, and a little bit of urging from this side of the chamber and from public comment, before we got the Minister to make the belated comment that he was not supportive of the MBA's and the HIA's proposals. Maybe there was some agenda out there, Mr Speaker. Maybe some deal had been done, Mr Speaker. Who


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