Page 312 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have seen this with the government’s treatment of the Flynn community over the closure of the former Flynn primary school. We have seen it with the problems facing the youth justice system. We have seen it with the GDE.
Section 49 of the Kingston foreshore, the Kingston arts precinct, belongs to the people of the ACT. It is, as Mr Stewart has said, a public asset. It is supposed to be set aside to be kept separate for the community. As I said before, it is not for a top-end commercial and residential development. It is for enriching the community’s cultural, arts and heritage experience. It should be kept separate from those commercial developments. The decisions about how it should be dealt with in the future should be kept separate and should be open for community contribution and dissent where necessary. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.49): I will speak to the amendment and close the debate. I appreciate the contributions from the Liberal and Labor Party having regard to the uniqueness of the arts precinct. Whatever happens as a result of the inquiry, it is really clear to all of us that this is a part of Canberra that is well loved and the community is well involved in it. I would point out, though, that the arts precinct is almost certainly not going to have 100 per cent arts and cultural facilities on it. Having been to some of the community consultations, there has certainly been talk about residential and office buildings as part of that precinct. So I think it is a little bizarre that we are excising one part of some commercial but not others.
What is even more positive out of this debate is that, although they have not recognised it in all cases, it is clear that both the Liberal and Labor parties have acknowledged that there is a real need for third-party appeals. By voting for this, as they will be by voting for Mrs Dunne’s amendment, they are stating very clearly that there is a time when we should have third-party appeals. The Greens obviously disagree as to the extent of this. We basically believe that in virtually all circumstances third-party appeals in planning are appropriate.
I went through the reasons in general why third-party appeals are appropriate in my first speech so I will not bore you all by repeating them. But I think it is somewhat difficult. I am very glad in this debate that I am from a party that has a clear position on third-party appeals.
The problem with doing what we are doing with this amendment is that some commercial developments will presumably be exempt from third-party appeals, whereas others will not. So effectively we are picking commercial winners and losers. I think that is a bit problematical. As I said, I am glad that this is not the position that the Greens have.
I commend my motion to the Assembly. While I would have liked it to be passed unamended, I believe that, even if it is passed in an amended form, it is a substantial step forward from the position that would otherwise have been the case. I think third-party appeals are an important part of our planning system and I am pleased that they will be restored in at least part of Kingston.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video