Page 179 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
resident. It is about what every Canberran wants for the heart of their city. It is about government and, in this instance, property owners and the business community within this part of our city working together in genuine partnership to overcome some of the obstacles that have held the city back as a place that has found its way into the heart of us all.
This is an excellent proposal which should have been automatically supported. The cheap political capital that you think you can maintain or bleed from this proposal is really at odds with what all Canberrans want. It is at odds with what the Property Council of Australia has asked us to deliver. It is at odds with what Emmanuel Notaras and the City Heart Association has asked of us and continually represents to us. It is at odds with what the people of Canberra want.
The people of Canberra want this investment in their city heart. They want this investment in the city and they want the government to work in partnership. Governments cannot achieve everything. We see that in relation to the difficult issue of graffiti. As a rule the government cannot simply roll up to a graffiti-ridden building that is in private ownership, or a private sector building that is badly maintained and say, “You are letting down the team a bit. You are letting down the city. You are letting down the heart of the city. You are not holding up your end.” They would just give us the finger as is their entitlement.
You think that is fair, that is the status quo, that is acceptable and that is okay. It is all too hard. They are the owners or the leaseholders and they can maintain this building in a shoddy state. They can bring down the look and the feel of the entire city but that is their right. You would be the first to complain about the look and the feel of the city with shoddy buildings not maintained if property owners take the decision, “This is a building I might redevelop in 10 years time; so I will not expend any resources on it now. I will bring the whole city down.” You think this is fair and reasonable. It is too hard for you.
What you are saying is, “This is too hard. This is a difficult issue. It is all too hard for the Liberal Party so we will just roll over. We will let people with rundown, ugly, non-maintained buildings maintain them in that status because it is all too hard for us. Let the market determine this.” It is the classic laissez faire attitude of, “Somebody owns it, let them do what they want. Let them maintain it in the state of disrepair that suits them.” What nonsense!
Governments must lead, governments must facilitate and governments must work in partnership. Governments must respond to legitimate representations from leading organisations such as the Property Council of Australia and the City Heart Association. I think most importantly—you have ignored them in this equation—the people of Canberra want this. They demand it of their city and their city heart. They want it maintained. They want to feel comfortable about coming here. They want it to look nice, they want it to be safe and they want it to be vital. Today opposition members are arguing that they do not care, that it is too hard and that they do not want it. I will finish on a point that has to be made. We again have another Liberal Party promise about another set of moneys, another piece of revenue legislation of a sort—
Mrs Dunne: You admit that it is revenue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .