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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3421 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

important story of the brickworks development and its contribution to the buildings of Canberra. And that is not a bad place from which to start.

The report proposed that residential development that could, under the current controls, be located in the 8A area, be moved away from the brickworks. So the community representatives themselves said, "Move it further away to protect the archaeological heritage of the site."

This raises another point. Who put that control in place? Who said that residential could actually go in quite close and tight to the existing brickworks? The Labor Party. It was gazetted in 1993 in the Territory Plan, just like land at Tuggeranong Homestead which the Labor Party wanted to build on. So if we are talking about credibility of process here, ask those who put it in place-those who now so blithely walk away from it, as they always do.

Let us be clear on the issue. The proposal to investigate the possibility of residential development in areas currently defined as open space came from representatives of the local community. Those who support the motion that is before us today seek to take away the voice of the local community because the process does not deliver the answer they want.

It is curious, Mr Speaker: the government gets the process right only when it seems to meet the expectations of those opposite. Yet we use the same process all the time. Conclusions are sometimes reached that the government and obviously others in this place do not agree with, but that is the process that we use.

Some opponents of development in the area have said as part of this consultation that they did not know of these proposals or they did not support these proposals. That is fair enough, that is the role of consultation and that is why we undertake consultation. But to say that the consultation process is now tainted or inadequate is nothing but a nonsense.

Immediately following the community's proposal being raised with the government, contact was made with residents' working groups. Monthly meetings were held from April this year to further explore the ideas put forward in the report and the subsequent suggestion that Floriade might be located in the brick pits area. I note that the Yarralumla Residents Association newsletter of July 2000 listed a number of matters to be considered at its next meeting. One of those matters was to listen to proposals that Floriade be partly based at the brickworks site. So it has been out there for a long time and there has been a long period of discussion. The possibility of Floriade being located in the brickworks was openly discussed with the community from the outset.

These meetings were not just discussion groups. They worked on the consultants' brief, the consultation program and the management and timeframes for the process. It was an active involvement. More than 20 changes were recommended to the consultants' brief, and all but one were adopted. Additional public meetings were recommended, and that was included. Community representation was sought on the steering committee and two places were made available. So I am not sure how this process is flawed.

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