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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 584 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

knows? Nevertheless, we got it on the record in the end. Better late than never, I guess, but that could be Mr Smith's catchcry. Nevertheless, proposals that were put forward by the HIA and the MBA for high-rise towers were simply unacceptable. They are unacceptable, Mr Speaker, because they would completely change and destroy the nature of that site.

All the public consultation to date - over two years of public consultation, including an international design competition - has indicated that development on this site should be low-rise and sensitive to its setting. What is its setting, Mr Speaker? Its setting is the lake basin itself. Its setting is adjacent to the Jerrabomberra wetlands. Its setting is an unfinished part, if you like, of the Burley Griffin plan. Indeed, the winner of the international design competition for the Kingston foreshore tried to finish the work that has never been done on the completion of that end of the basin of Lake Burley Griffin. To plonk a couple of high-rise towers right on the foreshore - no matter how far set back they would be they would be on the foreshore development - would be to completely destroy that setting.

Not only was that a problem and a substantive concern of the committee; there was also the fact that the HIA and the MBA had not raised it before. Consultation processes are important, but the experience of this committee has been that when there is an issue of legitimate concern it is usually raised right through the consultation process. It is there when the draft variation goes out for comment; it is there when the preliminary assessment is being done, if that is taking place; and it is also there at the stage when the Urban Services Committee is considering its inquiry.

Mr Speaker, I leafed through the documents that we received from PALM as part of this inquiry. Here are all of the submissions that PALM received in response to the draft variation when it was circulated for public comment. I looked in vain, Mr Speaker, for a comment from the MBA or the HIA about high-rise towers, but it was not there. It was not there. I looked through all of the documentation that I had available to me about the public consultation that had taken place prior to this draft variation, and I looked in vain for comments about high-rise towers. They were not there.

I asked Professor Ken Taylor, who was a participant in the public consultation process, when he appeared before the committee, "Was this issue ever actually raised by anyone as something that they wanted to see happen?". He said, "No. No-one raised it". So for the MBA and the HIA to come in here at the eleventh hour, as my chairman said, and say, "Let's put it on the agenda" - - -

Mr Moore: Try it on.

MR CORBELL: "Let us try it on", as Mr Moore said. That was, at best, hamfisted, and, at worst, a complete mockery of the process.

Mr Speaker, imagine if the MBA and the HIA were proposing a particular development. Imagine if one of their members was out there proposing a development and they had done two years of public consultation at which no objection had ever been raised, or if objections had been raised they had been dealt with, and no-one had suggested changing the scale of the development. Imagine that a member of theirs was out there proposing to

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