Page 1502 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think that it is disappointing that Mr Barr’s amendment really takes out all the action. He did everything but say, “Keep the politics out of planning.” In regard to his amendments to (1) and (2), you seem to wonder why he bothers, except that the government always likes to delete all words and substitute something else. But when we get to his paragraph (3) of the motion, which is the gist of it, he has basically taken out all the actions that Mr Coe has suggested you need to take on board. And let us just remind ourselves what they are. This is nothing controversial. Paragraph (3)(a) of Mr Coe’s motion refers to:
undertake broad consultation with the community about changes at the Group Centre …
This is what Ms Le Couteur wants, not just what is happening at the Jamison centre but what is happening in that whole precinct. Paragraph (3)(b) refers to:
develop and clearly articulate a policy for who is responsible for consulting with the community …
Who could have a problem with this? Again, it goes to what Ms Le Couteur has been saying. We need to be able to talk about neighbourhood planning issues in a clear way.
Mr Coe reminds us that there was a 2002 Jamison master plan, which was consulted to death. As a member of this place who participated in the meetings, I know there was a great deal of work done on this and a genuinely high level of agreement that the Jamison master plan was the way ahead. I think that there was a level of bemusement, which was quite clear at the meeting that Mr Coe conducted the other day, among those people who had been involved the in previous master planning meeting. They were saying: “Why do we have to come back, why are we doing this again? If we applied the master plan, we would not necessarily be in this situation.”
I think that it is important that the government clarifies the status of the 2002 Jamison master plan and the government should also state what its plans are for the sale of land in the group centre so that there can be planning going forward. I think that these are important issues which, it seems, have been essentially cast aside by both the Greens and the Labor Party today.
The people of Belconnen, my constituents, Mr Coe’s constituents, want answers to these questions. They want to know why, if they spent so much time in 2001 and 2002 developing the Jamison master plan, it does not seem to hold water in 2011. They also want to know, when they have a problem, who it is that they talk to about it.
I did say that Mr Dawes was at the meeting the other day and I did say to him that he was welcome back into Belconnen to have another experience of consultation on parking Belconnen-style. And I meant that genuinely. The people of Belconnen have particular issues and concerns. They want to be able to take it up with the government. Mr Coe’s motion today says to the government, “Make it clear to our constituents whom they talk to and how they can resolve these issues.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video