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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2902 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Basically, the answer from the official was that it would be a sad thing. I do not want to say that I am directly quoting her, but her response was that it would be unfortunate if a "no development" option was picked, because there are issues of revenue and of paying for these sorts of facilities. There has been a lot of concern already about rates increases in the area.

I am happy for this to be clarified if it was not what was intended, but the implication was one that I have heard before from this government, that is, these less easily quantifiable benefits to a community, such as open space or Gold Creek homestead, are a cost to government and the community has to understand that. If the community is to come up with a response that is acceptable to government, it will have to acknowledge the cost to government. The community's response to any development proposal has to bring in an element of revenue raising from that site.

This is a very significant shift from what most people believe to be the role of government. Open space and certain types of community facilities obviously cannot pay for themselves in dollar terms, but they do have value and pay for themselves by providing the community of Canberra with a quality of life which enhances wellbeing. A lot of people in the community still believe that to be a fundamental responsibility of government. A very unfortunate manipulation occurs when this government presents its role to the community by saying, "Well you have to realise that, if you want this to stay here like this, you have to work out a way to make sure it pays."

On the question of infill, first the government said it was considering developing unused ovals and now it says it is not. However, the fine print of the government's latest land release program indicates that the government is undertaking a review of all unleased land in the ACT, including community land and open space, to identify infill opportunities. The government says that it will maintain appropriate levels of recreation and open space, but who is going to decide what is appropriate and how does it fit with the government's current emphasis on the costs? How is this review going to be undertaken? Will this be a case where the decisions have already been made and the reviews will be merely about justifying the decisions?

On the process side, we have also indicated a number of areas where the government could do better, for example, the LAPAC process, which has great potential to involve the community, but has been under-resourced and skewed towards business interests.

For all these reasons the Greens do deplore the government's failure to properly administer planning and land management in the territory. However, I do want to say that I question the purpose of Mr Corbell's motion today, apart from its obvious purpose of allowing him to make certain points. It is easy to deplore the government, but Mr Corbell's motion suggests no action that would improve the situation. If Mr Corbell just wanted to have a go at the government, then maybe it would have been more appropriate to have this debate as a matter of public importance.

I will support the motion.

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