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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 219 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is, nonetheless, both fascinating and frustrating that three-quarters of the way down the path some variance and division can emerge and some new or old idea becomes the currency. In this case, the notion of a civic square for Gungahlin has become popular, both as a nominal site for community identity-a sort of Garema Place-and as a solution to what is undoubtedly an immediate traffic issue.

There are some interesting questions regarding the status of organisations such as the Gungahlin Development Authority and the Gungahlin Community Council. There are also some questions as to the status of Gungahlin Community Council representatives-or is that nominees?-on the authority and what is and is not appropriate for them to pass on to their council and community. It seems that the role of the council, both for this government and for the previous Liberal government, is as a squeaky wheel, but not in the end as an organisation with any recognised influence or role in decision making.

The key question that Mrs Dunne's motion is asking us to confront is whether we should put a hold on development in order to process this issue further. By the way, I do have to say that I think that it is a little bit ironic to see this motion coming from the Liberals, because in the years I have been a member of this Assembly I have put up many motions like this one which were vigorously rejected by the Liberals.

Mrs Dunne: Not by me.

MS TUCKER: Not by you, Mrs Dunne, but by the person you were working with. Maybe you did not have any influence on him; I do not know. But it is interesting to see how the Liberals have changed their position-maybe not Mrs Dunne. Maybe Mrs Dunne always thought that my motions should have been supported, but she was overridden by Mr Humphries. That could have been the case.

Getting back to the point, the question that we need to answer is whether the current enthusiasm for a square is simply based on the inadequacy of the current temporary arrangement, for example, and whether the notion of main street development with active street frontages, as embraced by the GDA, really reflects the kind of civic environment that people would enjoy or whether it is more simply a passing fashion.

In that context, the fact that this town development is attracting interest round Australia, insofar as it seeks to promote pedestrian activity, safety and amenity through design, is worthy of note. I note that in none of the media coverage or the government's or community council's comments have these underlying issues been addressed in much detail. I have thought right from the beginning that the fact that the Gungahlin community did not want a mall was interesting, and it still is, and I have a lot of sympathy with that view.

I note that this motion calls on the government to resume consultation. The GDA would argue that it has always been in consultation and would point to a wide-ranging professional survey of 2,000 Gungahlin residents conducted over the past two years as the most recent example of that. Still, I have heard that calls for a town square or something similar were overlooked in that process, too. Mrs Cross just went into some detail to explain some of the concerns that have been expressed to her on this point. I have certainly heard those concerns expressed as well.

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