Page 1975 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the objectives of this land development agency will be to deliver more liveable neighbourhoods, less crowded neighbourhoods, better streetscapes, better urban design outcomes, places that people would want to live in in 20 or 30 years time.
As I spent some time driving through Gungahlin the other day with my building apprentice son, we marvelled at the—and I measured it once—1½ kilometres of straight, bare lanes that have been developed in places like Gungahlin and Harrison. I do not know that any of the criteria for better streetscapes, more liveable neighbourhoods, less crowded neighbourhoods and better urban design can be exemplified by that bit of urban design. Universally, if you talk to the general punter in the street, it is recognised that this is particularly bad urban design. It is particularly atrocious urban design and something that must be avoided.
If this is what Mr Corbell wanted to achieve by the establishment of the Land Development Agency, he has failed, along with everything else that has gone on with the Land Development Agency. What about what happened two Christmases ago with the marketing ploys of the Land Development Agency, when we went off with our children to see the school holiday cinema extravaganzas? I remember going off with the children to see King Kong, but we were confronted with the ‘King Kong’ advertisements from Mr Corbell’s Land Development Agency. There they were, extolling their virtues. They were not selling anything except the notion of the Land Development Agency. It was interesting because I was sitting with two or three other families, all of whom were reasonably switched on politically and do not necessarily adhere to my political persuasion, and each one of them made comments about how the Land Development Agency had driven up the cost of land in the ACT and that they were paying to sit through advertisements extolling the virtues of the Land Development Agency.
On every occasion that we have discussed the Land Development Agency, the Canberra Liberals have been extraordinarily consistent and straightforward. This morning Mr Barr called it ideology. I want to see Mr Barr’s ideology being cast aside—and, first and foremost, putting ideology aside and working for the benefit of the community.
It is interesting to read what Mr Corbell said about the Land Development Agency. For instance, his speech was all about the Land Development Agency working for the community. It was not government land development; it was community land development. If we were to ask any member of the community whether they felt that their community had been better developed under the governance of the Land Development Agency, they would say no, and they would say that because when a member of the community wants to go out and buy a block of land, they cannot afford to do it. They are moving across the border in droves because they cannot afford to do it.
I will give an example of some young people who are finishing their university degrees or their qualifications and who are looking to settle in this town, and who are saying, “I don’t think I’ll ever be able to afford to build or own a house in Canberra
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .