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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 3436 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

It is interesting that the only sour note has come from the Liberal Party. First of all, it was from the shadow Minister for Planning, who said that she wanted much higher levels of density in Gungahlin. At a time when we have the Gungahlin community saying that it is too crowded, there is not enough privacy and there is not enough open space, what is the response from the Liberal Party? They want higher levels of density. She wants more of the same-the same narrow streets, the same lack of privacy, the same lack of community facilities. It is very clear that the shadow Minister for Planning needs to go out and talk to Gungahlin residents a bit more about the issues that affect them in their neighbourhoods.

Then, to my surprise, the Leader of the Opposition stepped up to the plate on the weekend. What did he say, Mr Speaker? He said that he didn't believe that Gungahlin residents deserved the same level of local shops as other parts of Canberra have. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said-too many shopping centres in Gungahlin. That is what Mr Humphries said. We have Mrs Dunne saying that we want to pack them in and we have Mr Humphries saying that we don't want to give them too many shops. That is the approach of the Liberal Party when it comes to North Gungahlin. The Liberal Party have given Gungahlin residents poor planning, too much density and narrow streets, and now they are even colluding with their federal counterparts to delay Gungahlin residents getting a decent road.

Mr Humphries doesn't seem to believe that Gungahlin residents deserve a local shopping centre. We must remember, of course, the last time that Mr Humphries tried to intervene in retail trading policy. Remember that one? He tried to limit retail trading hours. What an absolute disaster that was. You would have thought he would have learnt his lesson and stayed right away from retail policy. What is he saying instead? He is saying, "Don't give them so many shops; it is not acceptable."What a short-sighted response that is. In contrast, the North Gungahlin structure plan reflects a strategic response to the issues that are being raised by the Gungahlin community.

For the information of members, North Gungahlin incorporates a total of eight commercial centres, a mix of local and group centres, two at the proposed suburb of Casey and one each at the proposed suburbs of Moncrieff, Amaroo, Bonner, Forde, Jacka and Taylor. Learning from the lessons of the past, unlike perhaps Mr Humphries, these centres do not follow the traditional model of local or group centres. The catchments of the local centres in Gungahlin are larger than those found in other areas of Canberra.

The five local centres proposed in the structure plan will serve a population of 35,000 residents, compared with seven local centres in Weston Creek serving a population of under 24,000 residents. Unlike Mr Humphries, we are actually responding to these issues in a contemporary way, rather than Mr Humphries simply saying, "Just don't give them any more shops."I am sure the residents of Amaroo would be very interested to hear your view on that, Mr Humphries.

In addition, the centres will not be the traditional local centre, but will be a mix of nodes of employment, including retailing, community and entertainment facilities, and convenience shopping with mixed-use characteristics. Moreover, they will be designed to be adaptable to meet changing circumstances in the demographics of the area and in retail trends. Furthermore, medium-density housing is being strategically located around group and local centres, giving people a housing choice close to facilities and public

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