Page 778 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
units; and initial feasibility and assessment of city to the lake projects to connect that area with the city proper, including investigations of the West Basin foreshore, convention and aquatic centres and the Canberra Theatre and new stadium.
An implementation timetable is included in the city plan, outlining how these and a wide range of other initiatives will be undertaken over future years. Together, they underscore this government’s commitment to investing in the city centre for all Canberrans, strengthening its place as a commercial, retail, recreational and cultural centre to meet the needs of all Canberrans and to strengthen the capacity of our economy as a competitive place to do business and to invest.
These are important stepping stones for the future development of the city centre. The city plan has been broadly received by stakeholders, by the Property Council, by the HIA, by the MBA, by the Institute of Architects and by the Planning Institute of Australia. All of these organisations have shown support for the strategic planning exercise and for an ongoing commitment to implementation. That commitment is shared by the government and we look forward to working with those groups into the future.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (3.55): Thank you, Dr Bourke, for bringing this subject on for discussion. It is an interesting subject. I will start with a few comments that Mr Corbell made. He said that this is the first time that an overarching document has been published on the future of Civic. I guess that is an admission by him that his City Hill concept for the future is an abject failure.
Indeed, if you look at the planning history, there is a section on the planning of the city. It talks about things that the national capital plan had done. You get to the section where it looks at ACT government planning. Apparently, it only starts in 2008. Nothing happened before 2008? It is stated that the Canberra plan: towards our second century that was released in 2008 provides for the new vision. And on it goes. But it is quite interesting that the only mention of Mr Corbell’s plan is on page 28 of the document. It is just tucked away in a little chronology.
There is absolutely no acknowledgement of Mr Corbell’s plan City Hill—a concept for the future. If I was the government, I would not be mentioning it either, because it was an abject failure. It was a total, abject failure. Of the 16 or so major concepts listed in the document on page 6, none of them has happened. That is the problem with this government. It is all gloss and no action.
I think today that the debate on the priority projects shows that this government come to everything late, everything slowly. They are often dragged kicking and screaming to doing something because they had not done the right thing. They had not had the foresight. They had not done the planning. They did not put aside the money and they never deliver.
I remember back in 2001 Jon Stanhope saying his government would be a government of action. It would not be a government of gloss and stunts. Yet that is all we get. Indeed, Mr Coe, Mr Hanson and I were at a meeting yesterday with an interested group of Canberrans. That comment was made by many of those at the table—that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video