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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3423 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The government will not support the motion because many people have invested a lot of time, right from the work of the community that culminated in the report of July 1999 through to the work that is now being done by the consultants and through the expressions of interest of other interested people.

I think Mr Corbell made the assertion that the whole thing was about money, that it is all about "we'll do this if you do that". Any moneys made from the sale of land go to a central fund. This government has never and will never hypothecate. It is not something that we believe in.

Mr Corbell: Except for emergency services.

MR SMYTH: I will take Mr Corbell's interjection. As a principle, we would normally not hypothecate. Mr Corbell asked why were no other options presented. I am curious to know where Labor's option is. Labor is amazingly interested in this area. Labor zoned it for residential in 1993. That is what Labor wanted. (Extension of time granted.) Labor confirmed in the Territory Plan in 1993 what I believe to be an older NCDC policy that was probably made about 1988. Labor confirmed that residential development could go on around the site. The community through the report in July 1999 and said, "We don't want residential that close. Push it out. We are willing to use up some open space to give a wider buffer around the brickworks." So the question is: where is the Labor option on this? If they are that interested, what work have they done? The answer is none-none whatsoever.

I understand that next Thursday the consultants will present the work that they have done. I think Mr Moore might have said that this was to be the final draft. Although it is the intention that it be completed, that may not be the case. But they will present everything that they have.

The amendment put forward by Mr Moore resulted from a meeting I had at lunchtime, in the lead-up to question time, with members of the executive of the Yarralumla Residents Association. They want a continuing dialogue with the government. One of the people who were present said that a lot of useful work had been done, they found some of the indicative figures and the costs of different components of any development to be useful, and they want to have that knowledge. So the amendment should not be thrown out and the motion as it stands should not be supported.

The process should at least be allowed to finish. I have already given an undertaking that a group will meet with the Yarralumla Residents Association before the next meeting, and I have offered another meeting after that time as well. Mr Corbell points out that the Chief Minister and I are not included in Mr Moore's amendment. I give a guarantee and an assurance that officers from both of our departments will also be at that round table when we discuss the outcomes of the next couple of meetings.

The process should continue. Community and government have invested a lot of money, effort and time in getting to where we are at now. To lose that would be just silly. There are some people who do not want this to go ahead and I accept that they have a right to that view. But, starting from the position that the community gave us, we have attempted to work our way forward so that we might preserve the brickworks for all time, for the

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