Page 949 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Refusing to refer the variation to the committee, even though there was clearly significant concern about its contents, shows just how arrogant the government has become. It refuses to let the community have their say. It refuses to have its decisions scrutinised. When the minister approved the variation, the community was unaware of the slight amendments that had been made until they had been approved. There was no opportunity for them to let the government know that the changes that were made did not address the fundamental concerns. For a government that claims to take consultation very seriously, this is another example which shows that that consultation is a sham.
The Canberra Liberals share the community’s concern that RZ5 is inappropriate for this site. Putting potentially hundreds of apartments on this site is simply not the best planning outcome. The Canberra Liberals firmly believe that high density development should be undertaken in town centres and in major group centres where they can be adequately serviced by appropriate infrastructure. We understand that high density development appeals to many people, but we do not believe local centres are the appropriate place for high density development.
Residents have pointed out that the Red Hill site is not well serviced by public transport, and although it is close to local shops it is not close to other important services which usually go hand in hand with such high density development. The impact of a high density development on the existing infrastructure will surely be detrimental not just for the current residents but, indeed, for future residents too. We believe it is more appropriate to build high density developments where they can be properly supported by infrastructure and other important services.
We believe RZ3 would be a far more appropriate zoning for this area. I commend Mr Doszpot for his steadfast commitment to his constituents on this issue. He has been a true advocate for the community and for good planning outcomes. He should be commended for the sincere and genuine way in which he approaches this issue and others. The people of Molonglo, including the inner south, should be grateful for his work on this issue. In contrast, after the sitting started today at 10 am Mr Rattenbury called me to say that he had chatted with Mr Gentleman and that they would be adjourning this disallowance motion today. He told me there is confusion in the community about a number of issues.
I am very disappointed that Mr Rattenbury has left it until the eleventh hour to notify me that they were refusing to debate this issue today. All the concerned people in the gallery today should be let down by this fact. It was on the agenda today, and Mr Rattenbury and the government knew that. There was ample opportunity to let us know in advance that this would not be brought on for discussion today.
We feel that Mr Rattenbury needing more time to listen to the community and to actually comprehend what this means suggests that, at best, he does not understand the issue or, at worst, he is simply trying to buy more time. Rather than his view that there is confusion in the community, I suggest that there is indeed confusion in his office. There is no reason for this, given that Mr Gentleman, Mr Rattenbury and I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video