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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 585 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

build a 10-storey development and there had been no objections. Everything had happened. They had gone through two years of public consultation. Imagine if someone popped up at the last minute, at the eleventh hour, and said, "No, I reckon it should only be three". Imagine the reaction from the industry groups. They would absolutely cry foul; that they had tried to do the right thing all the way through and at the last minute someone had popped up their head and was trying to change everything and all the hard work that had been done. Well, rightly so, Mr Speaker; they could make that complaint. But, Mr Speaker, I think this committee has a complaint to make too - that an organisation comes in at the last minute and puts up this type of ambit claim for development when the hypocrisy in their position is so clearly illustrated by the example I just drew.

Mr Smyth sits back there and smiles and smirks. Mr Smyth should treat this seriously because he is always talking about due process and about getting the consultation right. Mr Smyth knows very well exactly what a development proponent would say if someone stood up at the eleventh hour and said, "No, this shouldn't happen", when they had never raised it before. Mr Speaker, that is what has happened in this case.

Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, there are no grounds for justifying high-rise development on the Kingston foreshore, now or in the foreseeable future, and I am pleased that the committee has recommended that way.

Mr Rugendyke: Unanimously.

MR CORBELL: And as my colleague Mr Rugendyke points out, unanimously. So the onus is now on the Government, Mr Speaker, to agree with the committee's recommendation and ensure that that is the case. Indeed, I would invite the Minister, when he makes his response in this place, to say, "We don't see it as appropriate in the foreseeable future either". That would be a tremendous thing to do. It would certainly allay some concerns about Mr Smyth's bungling and ineptitude to date, and his failure to properly state what was, after all, something that went through Cabinet.

The community's perception of the city is so important, and the community's perception of the National Capital Plan is so important. Professor Ken Taylor made a very interesting point when he said that you only have to stand on top of Parliament House and look out over the city and you have one of the most magnificent vistas of any city in the world. I think he is absolutely right. It is a vista which sometimes we underestimate because we see it every day, but it is a magnificent vista.

Professor Taylor made this point: Imagine looking out over the lake from the top of Parliament House and all of a sudden there are two towers jutting up right beside the lake. Mr Speaker, that would degrade that vista. Professor Taylor also pointed out that two towers already exist in the Kingston area, but at least they are set back further from the lake. To have them closer to the lake would be an absolute undermining of that magnificent vista, that magnificent legacy, that has been left to us. It is unfortunate, Mr Speaker, that the industry groups did not feel that that was an issue when they made their ambit claim.

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