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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 592 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

If Ministers obfuscate, give disingenuous answers or do not answer questions honestly, it simply raises the level of cynicism and gives real energy to those feelings of cynicism about whether or not the Government is governing in their best interests and is reflecting their views and their aspirations about the nature of the city that they want. The lake is so important and so central not just to Burley Griffin's vision of Canberra but also to the vision that we have as a community.

Mr Berry: I wonder how Mr Moore likes being part of the high-rise party.

MR STANHOPE: Well, that is the difficulty for Mr Moore, unfortunately. Mr Moore does shuffle these days, trying to distance himself from the Government in relation to these issues. We will see in 18 months' time how successfully he has managed to do that. We do have some views about how successful he might be and we will watch that with great interest.

I guess what this side of this chamber is asking here today, through this debate, is that the responsible Minister do what he has point blank and flatly refused to do over the last two weeks. We really would appreciate it if the Minister would stand up. He has been dragged to this position, but will he now stand up and declare absolutely that the Government, and we must include Mr Moore in the Government, is not a high-rise government, particularly not right on the edge of the lake?

As I said, the Canberra community probably has waited longer than it would have liked for development on the lake shore. I think this community has been waiting for years, if not decades, for some genuine community style development on the lake. It is something that I have been conscious of in the more than 30 years that I have been a resident of this town. It is an unfortunate gap in the provision of services.

This does create an interesting argument about the tension between the role of the National Capital Authority and the Federal Parliament in the planning of the city and the role of this place and of PALM and other planning authorities. That is a debate that we need to continue to refine. This community, those of us that have made this place home, have some legitimate expectations of the National Capital Authority and the Federal Government in their planning and attitudes about the place. This is a debate and an issue that we should continue to pursue aggressively.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12.18): Mr Speaker, I thank the committee for its endorsement of the Government's draft variation. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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