Page 2059 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Proposals to develop the brickworks are not new. The successive proposals over 15 years have included various housing, commercial and heritage developments. The community has been involved in the process, with numerous submissions, meetings and much commentary on the proposals. After all this time and so many submissions, you would think that the government could bring forward a plan which reflects community preferences. Of course, it is not possible for one plan to please everyone, but now we have a plan which seemingly pleases nobody—well, nobody outside cabinet. Perhaps it is not surprising that the government has not listened to the community’s previous feedback when you consider what they count as community consultation.
The government’s consultation about this proposal consisted of some glossy brochures and a half-day information session at the brickworks site. Members of the community wanted to use this opportunity to ask questions about the proposal. The LDA went along with their glossy brochures, and a diorama was used, but there was no representative from Roads ACT to explain the traffic implications of the proposal, and the diorama did not include any road upgrades. The community was confused about this because they believed that upgrades to the roads were part of the project. Of course, it turned out that the diorama was not wrong. The government was not planning to upgrade the roads. But there was not anyone there to answer people’s questions about the information, and the information only came as a result of further work done by community members and, primarily, Mr Doszpot.
The level of community concern with this project is obvious from the number of people who signed the petition presented earlier today. Over 4,000 people are concerned that this government has not provided adequate information about the proposal. They are concerned about the impact on traffic and they believe that the government has not properly considered this before bringing the proposal forward.
If this were an isolated event, the government could be forgiven for making an error or two—or many. However, the government’s behaviour on this issue is part of a pattern of behaviour on planning issues and many others.
I have spoken at length in this place about problems with the planning system and this government’s arrogant and misguided view of how the city’s planning regime should be governed. In opposition, some 15 years ago, Minister Corbell was an activist in favour of preserving green space and empowering the community. Now, 14 years into government, the complacency and centralisation have grown enormously.
The government seem to see neighbourhoods and the community at large as a hindrance. They seem to think that residents of Canberra get in the way of the government doing what they like.
We have had many examples of this arrogance. Perhaps it was the government’s implement of variation 306, which was opposed by the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Landscape Architects, Master Builders, the HIA, the Property Council, the Planning Institute and others, yet the government rammed it through.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video