Page 4861 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and input only for matters relating to the City Hill Precinct, enabling the dedicated and focused attention required, but with due regard for what is happening in the balance of the City;
It has to have the right to be independent and to develop. There is a call to action here. It should have responsibility. I continue:
iii. In particular, recognising the role of Government, it should not be concerned with balancing the development of the City Hill Precinct with other developments in the Territory; and
It has to be independent and it has got to be free to drive. The only way you can do that is through an independent and statutory authority. And then:
iv. In keeping with the principle … above, it should require minimal to no additional bureaucracy and in-house support—
but there is a governor on this recommendation. It goes on to say:
although if development demand substantially exceeds expectations its in-house support requirements might be revisited.
There is the kicker. If it gets up and it gets going, let us give it the resources to do so and to deliver what we all want on City Hill. What this means is: what you have to do is not smother, not suffocate, not stifle what people want, but give it the ability to drive, the freedom, the energy and the tools to make sure this can happen.
But that is not want Mr Corbell wants. He wants this delivered over 27 years because he wants control. Nothing is going to happen for the next five years because they have killed off the economy. There is no need for this. Mr Quinlan is there, rowing on his one oar, going around in a circle, the boatswain’s mate. But in 27 years my twins, who have just left school, will be my age. That is the sort of time frame you are talking about. In 27 years, any child graduating from year 12 will be 1½ times their current age. That is the time frame that this government is proposing, and it is absolutely preposterous. This will become known as the opportunity lost.
There were editorials in the Canberra Times over the last couple of budgets about opportunities lost. This is opportunity absolutely lost. The government’s approach today, their admission today and their lack of belief in the future of this city, as reported in the Canberra Times today, show quite clearly the failure of the economic white paper. It is not delivering anything. Where has the growth gone? It has disappeared; it has all been turned off.
The interesting thing is that on page 44, when they are discussing how the City Hill redevelopment or potential development should be delivered, it says:
An example, which approaches the concept being considered, is the City West Precinct Committee, albeit that this body is established under the terms of the agreement between the Territory and the Australian National University, rather than legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .