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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3418 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

A genuine consultation process-to use the minister's own words, a blank sheet-would have allowed for no residential development to be an option. But was that option presented by the consultants? No. Residents were asked to formally advise the government's consultants on their views about three residential options.

So, is this consultation process genuine? Is it devoid of a predetermined outcome? Of course it is not. The government needs to know that it has the confidence of the local community and indeed the broader Canberra community before it takes any decision based on the consultants' report. What is needed is a consultation process which has legitimacy and the support of the community. Labor will be supporting the motion moved this afternoon by Ms Tucker simply because it provides for a process which meets the sorts of parameters the community wants to see in relation to community consultation.

I would like to make one other point. Throughout this process serious consideration has not been given to what other options are available in relation to the preservation of the old Canberra brickworks. The old Canberra brickworks is a very important part of Canberra's heritage. It is the place where bricks were very made for many prominent buildings of early Canberra. Further, it is listed on the register of the National Estate.

As a community we have an obligation to protect and enhance these types of buildings, and to do so in a way that makes them available for people to see, enjoy and learn more about. But we are being told that the only way to fund the old Canberra brickworks is to build housing next to it. This government has said quite clearly through the options it has presented to the community, "We are prepared to spend money looking after the old Canberra brickworks, but only if you let us get the money from building residential developments next to it." That is what this government has said quite clearly in the three options that it has presented to the community to date.

But where has the community been given the opportunity to say, "We believe this should be funded directly by the territory without the need for residential development"? I know that is a costly exercise but it should be one open for consideration. It should be one of those options available to the community to have their say on. Let them have their say in an informed context so that they understand what the costs to the territory of upgrading the brickworks would be compared to the money coming from residential development. Let them know what the different options are. The government has not done that.

I do not like proposals that say, "We are going to hold a heritage building to ransom. We will not pay for its upgrade unless development is allowed next to it." That is what the government is saying in the options it has presented in the consultation process to date.

I am a little reluctant to take the word of the government in respect of the amendment moved by Mr Moore. I have not received any communication to date from the Yarralumla Residents Association indicating that what the amendment proposes is a preferred option for them. My office is checking that at this moment. In the absence of that, I cannot accept that the minister's proposal is a reasonable one.

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