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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2896 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

issues, on planning issues and on health issues. A whole range of people are involved in working together and that is one of ways in which we are working to try to build social capital.

Let me comment further on Griffith. The process that has to be carried out to consider the Griffith site has begun. The area is not being used in a way that is positive for the community at the moment. I was very keen, and I raised the issue of Griffith not so long ago. I rate it as a possible hospice site. I went to a meeting-and I think Mr Smyth was there-with the residents of Griffith and they said, "We think that this would be a very good hospice site." Why would it be a good hospice site? It was very close to facilities and it had a range of very positive aspects. I have to tell you that quite a number of people there said, "No, no, we certainly do not want a hospice site. We do not object to hospices. Of course we should have a hospice, just not here on this particular site."

I suspect that, no matter where we have a community meeting about the change of use of an area, we would have a group of people responding in that way. Nevertheless, they have a participatory role in the process. Those people had more than an equal right to participate in the process that went on at Griffith to make it very clear from the first that they would reject a hospice on that site.

Now there may have been a broader community interest. It so happens that we found a much better site for the hospice, a very beautiful site and I invite people to come down and have a look at how it is going. It is beautiful, and beautifully planned through a cooperative process that involved a range of people in a range of departments. So, this cross-portfolio process does work.

With regard to Griffith, these people have had many opportunities to express their opinion, as will others, because the change requires a variation of the Territory Plan. Variations to the Territory Plan have to be prepared in Mr Smyth's department, and those variations then have to go through the committee that Mr Hird chairs, and of which Mr Rugendyke and Mr Corbell are members. Those people's contributions will be considered.

I am moving on to the second part of the motion now. If I was developing my own house-a similar case to the Griffith situation-somebody in Gungahlin or Tuggeranong should not have an equal right to object to that redevelopment to the person who lives next door to me, who is going to be affected in a much more significant way. In the case of Griffith, the people around that area obviously have a far greater interest in the development.

When you talk about an equal right to participate in the planning process, I think you have to be very careful about how you present it and what you mean by it. Similarly, there is not one citizen here who has an equal right-nor should they have an equal right-to participate in the planning of the national capital parts of our city.

Annabelle Pegrum and the people on the board of the National Capital Authority clearly participate more and have a much greater right to participate in some things that have an impact on our city. This is the case because we recognise our city as the national capital, and we recognise that there is a national interest in what goes on in the planning of this

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