Page 3906 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Village; the current physical design of the village; car parking access and circulation issues; the need to create a new front door entrance that will direct shoppers from the main car park into the village; improved weather protection for shoppers and pedestrian movement between shops and the car park; and ensuring parking capacity and requirements are met and are consistent with ACT parking guidelines.
So, in closing, Mr Assistant Speaker, on the amendment, I would like to thank Mr Smyth for bringing forward the original motion. The government is doing a planning study for the Kambah Village. As always, this study will involve consultation with the community and with local businesses and will look at the potential to expand the shopping centre. I think perhaps in the end what we are ultimately arguing over here is what constitutes a master plan and how broad that plan should be. Without foreshadowing too much of my contribution on Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, we seem to be being drawn in two different directions. Ms Le Couteur talks a lot about localised planning. Now, how local is local? Does it need to get down to a street by street planning approach to the ACT? Very interesting. I note that, within the context of master planning work, I would interpret that as meaning a larger area.
I will be interested in hearing the views of other members as to exactly what they mean by a master plan. If what is currently proposed does not constitute a master plan, please identify the areas or the additions to that process that would satisfy them that it is indeed a master plan. That, I think, would be important, because it may well be that we do not disagree that much; we just have different interpretations of what each of the terms mean—although I do look forward to a more detailed explanation from Ms Le Couteur as to exactly what she means by her amendments, but that of course is the subject of some further debate later this afternoon.
In closing, I believe that the amendment moved by the Chief Minister acknowledges the issues at Kambah Village, outlines the government’s proposal to address those issues and provides a way forward to do so quickly, to take the opportunity that the Woolworths expansion proposal provides and to get some action happening quickly. We have heard quite a bit about this alleged delay in government action. Well, if we undertake a planning study of the kind referred to by Mr Smyth, it will be at least 12 months before that work is completed, noting there is no funding for it at this point, so we will have to stop doing something else or we will have to appropriate it in next year’s budget and it could not start until July next year. So there would be delay, I think. What Mr Stanhope proposes is a practical way forward to get some action now.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.06): I am curious at Mr Stanhope’s approach to this debate, because he comes into this place and says, “I’ve got a list, I’ve got a priority, but I can’t tell you about it because I didn’t bring the list with me.” It is not like this debate was sprung on the Chief Minister; it was on the notice paper last week. Indeed, I spoke to Mr Barr about it last week and I spoke with Ms Le Couteur about it, and there has been some talk about what might occur here. But the approach of the Chief Minister really does not get to the nub of what this is about.
This is about looking after people where they live. He runs off his list—Ainslie, Deakin, Lyons, Red Hill, Scullin, Garran. Well, I make the point that none of those, as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video