Page 2890 - Week 09 - Thursday, 13 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(2) Variation No 347 to the Territory Plan—University of Canberra—Block 1 Section 3 Bruce.
There is clear precedent in this place for governments, indeed governments of both persuasions, to move resolutions in the negative—disallowance proposals of their own territory plan variations. It has occurred under Liberal governments and it has occurred under Labor governments in the past in this place. Those opposite should be aware of that.
I note too the protestations of the Liberal Party that there is no proposal to disallow. Mr Coe signed documents dated this day to disallow the capital metro variation, variation 327. He also signed a document dated this day to disallow variation 347 in relation to the University of Canberra. Both of those notices of motion were received by the Clerk in this place at 10.55 this morning.
It is quite clear what the Liberal Party are attempting to do. They are not the party of any ideas or plans for the future. They are not the party that are interested in securing investment and growth in key institutions like the University of Canberra. They are not the party that are prepared to give any certainty around future planning for key infrastructure investments that are going to tackle congestion, grow jobs, create a more sustainable pattern of urban development in our city and provide better transport choices for people in one of the fastest growing parts of our city. They are just the blockers. They are the people who want to create uncertainty. They are the people who want to push away investment.
Let us remember what the federal assistant minister for infrastructure called them. He called them economic lunatics. That was their own federal colleague’s critique of their position when it came to capital metro. What is very clear is that we could wait another month and then come back and have this debate; and we know what the decision would be, because there is strong support amongst the majority of members in this place for these important projects and these important changes to the territory plan to proceed.
Let us look closely also at the level of community comment that was received in relation to each of these variations. In relation to the capital metro variation first of all, this variation has been before the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services. It was referred to that committee by the minister in November last year. That is over six months ago. The committee reported in June this year. So the committee had seven months to consider the draft variation, to call for evidence and to make recommendations in this place, but it was unable to provide any recommendations.
It is worth highlighting also that when this variation was a draft variation and it was placed for public consultation for a full further six-week period, only 10 submissions were received. The majority were concerned with the proposal to develop light rail in principle rather than any of the technical land use zoning changes that this territory plan document deals with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video