Page 310 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is our position and that is why we will not be supporting the disallowance, although we will be moving to amend the regulation.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.42): I move:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) amend the definition of “Kingston Foreshore” in Subordinate Law SL2011-30, Planning and Development Amendment Regulation 2011 (No 1), including the associated regulatory impact statement and explanatory statement, to exclude section 49 from the area outlined in bold on the plan in Schedule 3, part 3.4, division 3.4.6.”.
Earlier this week the Canberra Liberals revealed this government’s propensity to mislead and deceive the ACT community. We saw a government misleading and deceiving the people of the ACT in its feeble and flawed attempt to justify the $432 million office block which I have called the house of hubris. We saw it with the revelations by Mr Hanson about the announcements in relation to the walk-in clinics. Well, subordinate law 2011-30, Planning and Development Amendment Regulation 2011 (No 1), is misleading and deceitful for the ACT community as well.
This regulation has included the Kingston foreshore in the list of development zones that are exempt from third-party appeals in the ACAT. The justification for this is that Kingston foreshore is substantially master planned and has been the subject of wide-ranging public consultation, and there is no doubt that that is the case. The development in this area was subject to a design competition in the first instance, and has been substantially master planned since then. But that is not the case with section 49.
The language used in the justification about taking away third-party appeals about the Kingston foreshore is that it relates to top-end residential and commercial developments by large companies. My amendment seeks to excise section 49, the Kingston arts precinct, from this approach.
Why, Madam Deputy Speaker, is section 49 so different from the rest of Kingston? Why should the Kingston arts precinct not be exempt from third-party appeals just as the rest of the Kingston foreshore area is? I think the answer lies in the submission made by architect Colin Stewart to the current inquiry referred to by Mr Corbell into the use of the Fitters Workshop. To refresh our memories, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Stewart won the international competition mounted by the ACT government at the time for the design of the Kingston foreshore. Mr Stewart, in relation to the Kingston arts precinct, which he referred to as the cultural precinct, said in his submission:
It is also important for the committee to be aware that this entire cultural precinct … was, I understand, treated separately as a public asset to be retained indefinitely by the ACT Government for arts/cultural and related enterprise in order to one day realize this wide ranging vision for a world class cultural precinct that is self funding, and capable of accommodating numerous arts, cultural and community groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video