Page 1503 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But Mr Barr does not want clarity. Mr Barr does not want to clarify the status of the Jamison master plan. Mr Barr, it seems, on behalf of the government, does not want to make it clear what the government’s plans are for land sale. And the problem with that is that if these amendments pass, as they currently will, we will throw out all the good work that the government could do and replace it with a platitudinous comment of the sort that we have seen in Mr Barr’s amendment, which is to allow, without interference, the independent statutory authority to assess a planning and development application. No-one is gainsaying that. There is a role for the Planning and Land Authority to do that, and that stands outside Mr Coe’s motion.
Mr Coe’s motion in no way interferes with that process. There is nothing in this motion that could give anyone any concern that Mr Coe or the Canberra Liberals want to interfere with the assessment of the development application. What we are saying, on behalf of our constituents, is: give us clarity in relation to parking matters, in relation to land sales, in relation to how this development application stands in relation to the 2002 master plan. How do we ensure that our constituents who have spent considerable money in investing in the Jamison centre, taking it from a wreck of a place, with appalling public toilets—they were appalling—to a really pleasant place to shop, with great facilities and improved services? That considerable investment should not be thrown aside in this process.
So the Canberra Liberals cannot support Mr Barr’s amendment but I do commend Mr Coe for his work on this matter.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (6.44): On Ms Le Couteur’s amendments, and very briefly, I would not have had to rise again but Mrs Dunne obviously did not listen to what I said last time, so I will repeat this for her benefit, and for the record: in March 2003 the spatial and land use planning recommendations of the Jamison master plan were given statutory effect in variation 202 to the territory plan. So that is the status of the Jamison master plan, incorporated into the territory plan—now planning law. That is the fourth time I have said that in this debate this evening. Can I get a nod of understanding, Mrs Dunne?
Mrs Dunne: I was on the phone, obviously, last time you said it. Okay, Mr Barr.
MR BARR: Okay, you were on the phone and you did not hear, but I just want to make that clear—very clear, I would hope. The Department of Land and Property Services has a policy around consultation on land that it sells. With respect to that information, I will not repeat everything I said last time, but I refer you, Mrs Dunne, to the Hansard. You will see the detail of that policy and the process that LAPS goes through in relation to government-held land within the Jamison centre.
Finally, in relation to the specific development application that ACTPLA is currently considering, it is on notification; comments are open until 5 May. Today is 6 April, so there is an entire month available now for consultation on that development application that will be assessed against the territory plan and the Planning and Development Act. Having reiterated that for the third and fourth times in this debate, I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video