Page 1494 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This bill certainly achieves reform. It is remarkable in an Australian city to have a specialist and dedicated urban renewal authority and a separate statutory authority delivering a blend of suburban development and urban renewal projects. Delivering the vibrant heart of the city that this government has committed to do and the suburban centres that we need is best achieved by dedicated bodies, properly resourced, enabled and focused on those separate, not complementary, functions.
The Leader of the Opposition has made much of the fact that there are additional requirements around the work to be undertaken by the City Renewal Authority. As is set out in the bill, those requirements operate in addition to those within the Financial Management Act and reflect the magnitude of the urban renewal task, as well as the discretion with which the City Renewal Authority board is vested in shaping the future of our city centre. And in this context it is worth bearing in mind that the Suburban Land Agency, unlike the Land Development Agency that it will replace, has all of its functions expressed to be exercisable with the approval of the minister, reflecting the much closer nexus of government control over its functions.
This is evident not just in comparison with the City Renewal Authority but also in relation to the current capacities of the Land Development Agency board. So to this end, the bill delivers on the government’s commitment to bring forward robust governance arrangements and clear roles for both entities, with significant government oversight and direction. The bill also very clearly separates the entities from the ACT public service and ensures that both roles and responsibilities and accountability for performance and outcomes are delineated and understood.
This morning the Leader of the Opposition also rather strangely criticised the focus of the City Renewal Authority on revitalising Canberra’s city centre, allegedly at the expense of other areas of Canberra. I say it is strange because the Leader of the Opposition’s policy that he took to the election last year, not as Leader of the Opposition but in his role as, I think, shadow planning minister, was:
The centre of any city should be a hive of commercial, residential activity. However, at present, the centre of Canberra has been treated as a poor cousin to other parts of the city. As such there is a need to ensure that the centre of Canberra is not neglected.
Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that in creating a city renewal authority we will absolutely ensure that the centre of Canberra is not neglected. Indeed, the entire purpose of the City Renewal Authority that I outlined extensively in this place in December last year was a real focus on that task of CBD renewal.
It is also simply wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that the bill is silent on community engagement and participation. The bill creates exclusive duties on both entities to work positively with interested people and organisations in their delivery works. This is in addition to the government’s clearly stated broader
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video