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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 781 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

with the major development on the Latham shops site, as we would know for sure by then what is being built there. This deferral may only need to take a few months, but it could take longer. It really depends on how the future of the Latham shops is resolved.

This is the primary issue in this location and I do not think that this issue should be clouded by the government attempting to get some development happening on the smaller adjacent block. There has been a huge loss of trust in the community over this incident. It is another incident; they are just building up. That is why I am starting to think that the claim of this government of being committed to developing social capital is a bit of a joke. Time and again the government makes very broad rhetorical statements about its commitment to building social capital and community development principles and then it does something like this.

We heard from Mr Moore one minute ago that the government is not expecting its consultant to engage in debate with the community about social capital and community development issues over the redevelopment of Burnie Court because the government will do that later. I am sorry, that is not how to build social capital. That is the powerful elite making decisions and imposing those decisions on the community. That is the opposite of what anyone would understand would lead to the development of trust in community development principles. It is totally the opposite. This is another example of that.

I hope to get support for this motion from the Ginninderra members. I am really concerned that they are not taking greater interest in it.

MR HIRD (3.38): Mr Speaker, may I just say to Ms Tucker, as a member for Ginninderra, that I am taking a positive interest in this matter, and she knows that. It was rather a low blow that she threw across the chamber. I think that she is grandstanding a bit on this issue. I have made inquiries of certain residents of Latham and they are concerned about the eyesore that remains at the Latham shops, whose redevelopment she gave an undertaking to hold up.

Let me talk about the issues in real terms. A committee of this place reported on the proposal in October 2000, having taken evidence at public hearings. During 1998 and 1999 the committee received seven submissions from the public and one from the government. The committee held public hearings in November 1998 and a further four public hearings in 2000. It went into the matter in great detail. You know, Ms Tucker, that there were 10 variations. Some of the people you are speaking for have vowed to stop this development, no matter which way the appeal goes. They have said that.

Ms Tucker: Which development are you talking about?

MR HIRD: The proposed development of 19 townhouses and the ability to take commercial areas from the 19 townhouses, plus a 100 square metres corner shop. I could go into that in great detail, but you already know about it because you would have read in detail report No 58 of my committee dealing with this-

Ms Tucker: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I help Mr Hird by going over my speech again to say what development I am talking about in my motion?

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