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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 177 ..

actually the view from Bugden Avenue. How can anyone trust what the minister puts out when it is incorrect?

The other thing is that the whole notion of the size of the building is not made clear in the plans. Mr Corbell used to have what he called a hatred for de facto three-storey buildings. The reason you do not get an eastern projection of what this facility will look like is that it is a de facto three-storey projection. Of course, one of those storeys is the foundation, but without that foundation the rest of the building does not stand. If you look at the northern and southern projections, quite clearly it is a large building on the eastern front. What you do not get is an eastern projection.

Then you get to the issue of trees. I have seen a letter that said six of the 12 major trees will be kept, but the letter does not go on to say that 55 of the 66 trees will be removed. This goes to something else that Mr Corbell was always really keen on not doing—eating into the de facto urban open space and the treed environment. These trees provide amenity to the local residents. Indeed, anybody coming over the hill off the Monaro Highway up Isabella Drive can see these trees on the ridge line. This is one of the ridge lines that we have protected in this territory. Not any more. Fifty-five out of the 66 trees will go, and according to Mr Corbell it just depends on your definition.

We then get to another of Mr Corbell’s pet hates, which used to be limited notification. I can remember numerous times requests from Mr Corbell that for major redevelopments we should go further, we should try harder, we should do more. And what was sent out?—14 letters in a Christmas period, of which approximately six have been acknowledged. So what you have is the sneakiness of doing it over Christmas and the sneakiness of doing it with limited notification in, you can only assume, the hope not to get caught.

Mr Speaker, the sneakiness continued. Residents were then told that they could actually go to the ACTPLA website and view it; that, as was normally done, ACTPLA would put these plans on display. But the plans took forever to get to the website. Also, if you made the journey from Tuggeranong to Dickson you found that initially you were able to view only a limited number of plans. Unless you knew what questions to ask and unless you pressed the staff for more plans, they were not forthcoming. You were not shown them all on the first viewing; you had to know what to ask.

Indeed, some of the plans are still not available, so people do not know how many residents this facility will accommodate—is it 60, is it 70, is it 40? The number keeps shifting, and it is sneaky to say that people are not able to view the plans because there is confidentiality surrounding them. Indeed, from the look on his face when that was raised with him at a recent Tuggeranong Community Council meeting, I would say that Mr Savery was very unsure about what was going on.

There was a call for a public meeting. The community council asked the minister, through the minister’s office, whether they could have a public meeting. They were told no, the minister would not do a public meeting. The next day on radio he denied he had ever been asked. Then there was this backflip: “Oh, we thought you wanted us to do the meeting.” The minister’s office knew exactly what was happening. The minister’s office acts on behalf of the minister. They said they asked the minister and he said, “No meeting.” So again we see this sneakiness, the continually shifting ground.

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