Page 369 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What the bill before us today will do when it is passed is provide that outcome which we have been arguing for from the start. We can protect residents from inappropriate development, we can ensure that development goes ahead in an appropriate way, we can ensure the economic development of the territory, but we do not have to do it by sacrificing what people love about Canberra: it is a well-planned city and we do not have industrial projects in our backyard.
We had people saying to us, “Well, in Wollongong they’ve got them a few hundred metres from homes.” I say, “I’ve been to Wollongong. Wollongong is a lovely place with lovely beaches, but the planning is a shambles.” And this is quite aside from the dodginess we have seen in the council. This is a place that has just grown up. Try getting out of Wollongong—it is outrageous. Canberra is a different place. It is something we want to protect. It is a beautiful place and part of what we love about it is that people who buy their homes know that they are not going to get an industrial development in their back yard. It is a legitimate expectation that when a person purchases a home in a residential area they will not see developments like this going ahead.
We will be supporting this bill in principle. I will flag now that I have circulated amendments. We have concerns about the wording of the preamble. I have circulated an alternative wording and I commend that wording to members. I will speak on that in the in detail stage.
The other clause that we have problems with is clause 9, which essentially goes to the definition of a communications facility. We believe that this would be a concern to residents of Tuggeranong, because one of the key problems with this proposal was that they were seeking to use a communications facility and the definition of “broadacre land” to allow a power station, and there is significant doubt, as highlighted by the Auditor-General, about that. We certainly do not want to set a precedent through this legislation that would say that a communications facility includes a gas-fired power station. We do not believe that is reasonable and that is why we will be opposing this clause. I understand the government and the Greens will not be supporting that clause either and we are pleased about that.
I submit to members that this bill is essentially the result of the government’s flawed and failed processes, as so comprehensively set out by the Auditor-General. We said before the election, and we maintain that now, that we would work with the government, we would work with the crossbench and we would work with the community to get an outcome that got the best of both worlds—that we could protect residents, that we could protect economic development, that we could protect projects of this kind. For that reason we are happy to support the bill but we will move the amendments that have been flagged.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.33): I am pleased to inform the Assembly that the Greens will be supporting this bill today. As everyone is aware, the Greens supported the nearby residents of Macarthur and Fadden in opposing the proposed data centre construction on block 1671. Thus, this bill to facilitate moving the proposed development to Hume block 20 section 23 is welcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .